The Supreme Court has reiterated that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim..A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons..This stance was reaffirmed by two separate judgments rendered today by the Court..One judgment was given by a Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Mohan M Shantanagoudar in the case of Md. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam..Another judgment was given by a Bench of Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Dinesh Maheshwari in the case of Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal..Both matters were murder cases. The contention of the accused in both cases was that the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased or family of the deceased..In Md Rojali, the Court noted the contention and ruled on the same holding that merely because a witness is related does not mean she is an interested witness. A witness may be called interested only if she derives some benefit from the litigation. In the context of a criminal case, that would mean the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons..“As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now wellsettled that a related witness cannot be said to be an ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.” .In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested, the Court made it clear..The Court also held that in case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent..The same stance was taken by the Court in Laltu Ghosh case also. Both the judgments have been authored by Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar..Read the judgments below.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim..A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons..This stance was reaffirmed by two separate judgments rendered today by the Court..One judgment was given by a Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Mohan M Shantanagoudar in the case of Md. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam..Another judgment was given by a Bench of Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Dinesh Maheshwari in the case of Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal..Both matters were murder cases. The contention of the accused in both cases was that the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased or family of the deceased..In Md Rojali, the Court noted the contention and ruled on the same holding that merely because a witness is related does not mean she is an interested witness. A witness may be called interested only if she derives some benefit from the litigation. In the context of a criminal case, that would mean the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons..“As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now wellsettled that a related witness cannot be said to be an ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.” .In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested, the Court made it clear..The Court also held that in case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent..The same stance was taken by the Court in Laltu Ghosh case also. Both the judgments have been authored by Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar..Read the judgments below.
