Witness Can Be Called ‘Interested’ Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished: SC [Read Judgment]

“A witness can’t be said to be an ‘involved’ witness merely by the distinctive feature of being a relative of the victim.” The witness can be called “involved” only when she or he derive some benefit from the result of litigation inside the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused character punished, the Supreme Court determined at the same time as rejecting a defense competition in a criminal conviction.

In Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State, the defense had raised a controversy that the tales of the involved witnesses, who are the spouse and children of the deceased, should no longer have been relied upon by the Trial Court. Sadyappan was convicted with the aid of the Trial Court (which turned into later upheld by the High Court) for the murder of his neighbor Selvam @ Thangaraj. In the appeal filed by the accused, the bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar found that their testimonies have stood the rigor of cross-examination, and even though they may be related however they couldn’t be labeled as involved witnesses. It stated:

“Criminal regulation jurisprudence makes a clear difference between a related and involved witness. A witness cannot be stated to be a “fascinated” witness merely through the distinctive feature of being a relative of the victim. The witness may be known as “interested” only while she or he derives a few enjoy the result of litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused individual punished.

Referring to their testimonies, which corroborated the prosecution model, the bench dismissed the enchantment and located:

“Though they may be related to every other and the deceased as well, their evidence can’t be discarded by genuinely labeling them as ‘involved’ witnesses. After thoroughly scrutinizing their evidence, we do not locate any direct or indirect motive of these witnesses to get the accused punished with the aid of falsely implicating him that allows them to pursue any vested interest.”

Some witnesses, in this case, had said that, as the deceased did not flip up after leaving home at 11 pm on the previous night, they went in search of him and determined his dead body in ‘Vaalaithope.’ One of them, who’s a nephew of the deceased, also deposed in his declaration that once he went to Sirumugai Police Station, he noticed the accused folks there and witnessed their confessional statements recorded by the police. The wife of the deceased had stated that the deceased turned into closing visible together with the accused.