Independent witness and interested witness – What the Delhi HC held

The Delhi High Court has held that unless it is proved that a witness harbours some enmity against the accused or he wished to implicate him falsely, such witness would be treated as an independent witness. Interested witness, on the other hand, suggests that a witness ought to have had some animus against the accused or harboured hostility against him, the Court said..The clarification forms part of a judgment passed by a Division Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Vinod Goel in an appeal against an order of conviction passed by the trial court..The trial court had convicted the appellant, Shambhu Yadav under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 4-year-old boy..The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 30,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act..The first person to report the matter to the police was one Arun Kumar who was present in the house when the victim’s mother came to him crying and told him that somebody had committed a wrong act with her son..Kumar witnessed blood smeared on the thigh of the victim. After the victim uttered the appellant’s name, Kumar went to the appellant’s room but found him missing. He then noticed blood on the appellant’s bed. Kumar later apprehended the appellant from near the house and called the police..Apart from Kumar, the prosecution examined 10 more witnesses which included the victim’s parents..In the appeal before the High Court, the appellant argued that reliance cannot be placed on Arun Kumar’s testimony as he was an unreliable witness. It was submitted that since Kumar was related to the victim’s mother, the prosecution had failed to produce any independent witness..It was alleged that Kumar had falsely testified because he had to return a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the appellant. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by Kumar and the victim’s father to extort money..It was further urged that the prosecution had failed to show the spot from where the appellant was apprehended and contradictory statements in this regard were made by Kumar and the mother..The appellant also argued that the testimony of the victim’s mother had material contradictions..After analysing the material on record, the Court observed that the plea that Kumar was an interested witness being a distant relative of the victim’s mother, was “devoid of merits”..Relying on a series of judgments by the Supreme Court and High Court, the Court noted that the relationship was not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness..It stated,.“It is no doubt a well settled rule of prudence that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be examined meticulously, but once the court is satisfied that his/her testimony is credible, then the said evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration. Further, unless it is proved that such a witness harbours some enmity against the accused or he wished to implicate him falsely, for all effects and purposes, he can be treated as an independent witness.”.Coming to the instant case, the Court observed that Kumar was a natural witness who was at home on the relevant date and time and was residing in the very same building where the appellant, the victim and his family were residing as tenants..By no stretch of imagination can he be treated as an interested witness, the Court said..“..the word, ‘interested’ connotes that a witness ought to have had some animus against the accused or he harboured a hostility against him. The appellant’s version that PW-4 (Kumar) had reason to depose falsely since he had borrowed some money from him prior to the date of the incident, rings hollow particularly in the light of yet another version of the incident sought to be offered by him to the effect that both, PW-5 (father) and PW-4 (Kumar) had planned to extort money from him. Though the appellant was afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, he failed to prove the said allegations.”, it concluded..The Court also rejected the objections against the victim’s mother’s testimony..“..the appellant, corroborated her son’s version.. During her testimony, there was no attempt on the part of PW-1 (mother) to embellish her statement or improve upon the same in any manner. Though she was cross-examined by the defence, nothing material had emerged therefrom.”.Accepting the child victim’s testimony, the Court reiterated that as long as the victim’s testimony was found to be credible, sincere and rang true, it was sufficient to convict the accused..The reply of the victim to the questions posed was brief and to the point, it said..The Court further stated that apart from the ocular evidence, there was sufficient medical and scientific evidence brought on record by the prosecution to squarely indict the appellant..It thus upheld that trial Court’s judgment and order of conviction and remarked,.“Here is a case where for once, the police did not lose any time in conducting the investigation and the sequence of the events that stand amply corroborated in all material aspects, are borne out from the independent evidence brought on record, all which when taken together, endorse the testimony of the victim that it was the appellant who had committed carnal intercourse with him.”.While rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court was “unduly harsh” in awarding rigorous imprisonment for life, the Court observed:.“.. the appellant has not only caused physical injuries to the victim but more than that, the said act would have left deep emotional scars on him likely to stay on in his mind for a long long time to come. This reprehensible animality demonstrated by the appellant would have caused the victim such trauma that he will be wary of reposing trust in an adult or live a joyous and carefree life in his formative years. There will always remain a shadow of fear and anxiety looming over him. This trust deficit caused to the victim by none other than a neighbour whom he knew well, is an irreparable damage to his psyche. What could be more damaging than this? It is said that “Better broken bones than broken spirit”..”.Given the nature of the crime and the tender age of the victim, the Court also directed that the compensation amount of Rs. 4 lakh awarded by the trial court to the victim under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2015 be enhanced..The appellant was represented by DHCLSC Advocate SS Ahluwalia with Advocate Mohit Bangwa..State was represented by APP Kusum Dhalla..[Read Judgement].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.