Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Shio Shankar Dubey and others challenging their conviction under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 16.05.1980, the informant Raj Ballam Rai and his brother Raj Keshwar Singh were returning from Sasaram Court when they were attacked by the accused. The informant gave a fardbeyan at the spot, leading to registration of FIR. The trial court convicted four accused, one having died during trial. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellants argued that the key witnesses PW11 (informant) and PW13 were close relatives of the deceased and thus interested witnesses, and that PW5 did not name appellant No.2 Ram Pravesh Dubey. They also pointed to inconsistency between inquest report mentioning bullet injury and post mortem report showing no bullet injury. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that close relatives are natural witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship. The Court relied on precedents including Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra. The Court found that PW11 and PW13 were trustworthy and their evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. Regarding PW5, the Court noted that he named four accused running away, but the omission of Ram Pravesh Dubey's name was not fatal as PW11 and PW13 had clearly implicated him. The inconsistency in inquest report was explained as an error of judgment. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Interested Witness - Natural Witness - Close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness - The term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused convicted for some animus or other reason - Held that mere relationship does not impeach evidence; each case must be judged on its own facts (Paras 10-12). B) Evidence Law - Related Witness - Sole Testimony - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of a close relative if found intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy - Close relative would normally be most reluctant to spare real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person (Para 11). C) Criminal Procedure - Inquest Report - Inconsistency with Post Mortem Report - Mention of bullet injury in inquest report but no bullet injury in post mortem report - Held that such inconsistency is not fatal to prosecution case if explained as error of judgment (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and other sections of IPC can be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses and in the absence of independent witnesses?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302/149/148 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act (for appellant No.1), Sections 302/149/147 IPC (for appellant No.2), and Sections 302/147 and 379 IPC (for appellant No.3).
Law Points
- Testimony of related witnesses
- Interested witness
- Natural witness
- Corroboration
- Inquest report inconsistency
- Motive
