Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guided by-
Prof. Virendra Singh Thakur
Adv. Swetha Iyengar
Submitted by-
Jaskeerat Singh Johar
th
4 Year B.BA.LL.B (Hons.)
PRN- 15010126330
Roll No. 330
Division – D
LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
ABSTRACT
This article deals with the legal status of an interested witness and a related witness. The author
has examined the view taken by the Supreme Court in its judgment of Raju alias Balachandran
and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu1 and compared it with the precedents which were set by the Apex
Court in this field. The principle point of this article is to bring out in detail the concept which
was enshrined by the Supreme Court in Raju alias Balachandran case, to put forward author’s
opinion that whether the judgment was correct or not and the recent development related to the
said case. Through this article, the author has reached to the conclusion that so far the part of the
judgment that deals with scrutinizing the evidence of a related witness with great care and caution,
is correct but the other part of the judgment where a related witness has been said to be an interested
witness having an interest in ensuring that the accused is punished, is far from being correct.
Introduction: Concept enshrined by the benches in the cases of Dalip Singh4 and
Supreme Court in Raju alias Balachandran Kalki5 and a two judges’ bench in the case of
and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu.2 Waman,6 purported to take a totally different
view to the effect that a “related witness” is an
The two judges’ bench which decided the case
“interested witness” having an interest in
of Raju alias Balachandran after quoting a
ensuring that the accused is punished.
proposition laid down by a four judges’ bench
in the case of Darya Singh,3 two three-judges’
1
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
2
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
3
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, (1964) 3 SCR 397.
4
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145.
5
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2 SCC 752.
6
Waman v. State of Maharashtra., (2011) 7 SCC 295.
2|Page
LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
The Apex Court also observed that there are unrelated witness. That is all that is expected
four categories of witness which a court has to and required by the courts at the trial stage.8
deal with:
iii. a related and therefore an interested completely different view from the precedents
witness (such as the wife of the victim) set by the benches of the same court and came
The Hon’ble Court further held that the real previously held that “related” is not equivalent
issue is not the categorization of a witness, but to “interested”.9 A witness may be called
the issue really is one of appreciation of the “interested” only when he or she derives some
should always examine the evidence of a civil case, or in seeing an accused person
related and interested witness having an punished. A witness who is a natural one and
interest in seeing the accused punished and is the only possible eyewitness in the
also having some enmity with the accused circumstances of a case cannot be said to be
with greater care and caution than the “interested”. Any close relative or friend, if he
evidence of a third party disinterested and is a genuine eye witness, will be the last
7 9
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2
Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983. SCC 752.
8
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
3|Page
LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
person to falsely accuse an innocent person, of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as
the inevitable consequence of which will be to an ‘interested witness.’14
allow the real assailant to escape the clutches
The word “Interested” In the general or
of law. Such an attitude on the part of a close
popular sense means only, “having an interest
relation or friend would be most unnatural or
or concern”.15 But in the matter of
strange, unless the accused can show that the
appreciation of evidence in criminal cases,
witness has reason to do so for some specific
courts, generally speaking, have not gone by
reason or the other.10
the popular meaning; courts have adopted a
Merely because any witnesses are related to special meaning namely, that a person can be
the complainant or the deceased, their regarded as an interested witness only if he,
evidence cannot be thrown out.11 Once it is activated by ill feeling towards the accused or
found by the Court, on an analysis of the for extraneous reasons, wishes to ensure that
evidence of an interested witness that there is accused is convicted and sent to prison.
no reason to disbelieve him then the mere fact “Extraneous reason” can only mean some
that the witness is interested cannot persuade reason other than the incident in which his
the court to reject the prosecution case.12 close relation or friend sustained serious
injuries. Ordinarily, such extraneous reason
It is well settled that when it comes to the
can only be ill feeling or strong antipathy
credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives
towards the accused. This is what the
of the victim, the court has to scrutinize such
Supreme Court has consistently opined for
evidence with greater care and caution, but
over sixty years. Therefore the formulation in
such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole
Raju alias Balachandran of a “related and
ground of their interest in the prosecution.13
therefore an interested having an interest in
The relationship per se does not affect the
seeing that the accused is punished” is not
credibility of a witness. Merely because a
correct.
witness happens to be a relative of the victim
10 13
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2 Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar,
SCC 752. AIR 2008 SC 2436
11 14
Waman v. State of Maharashtra., (2011) 7 SCC Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar,
295. AIR 2008 SC 2436
12 15
State of U P v. Ballabh Das and Ors., AIR 1985 SC See Chambers, 20th Century Dictionary, new
1384. edition 2015.
4|Page
LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
16 18
State and Ors. v. Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Guddu Raj v. State, 2018 VIAD (Delhi) 476.
19
(17.12.2018 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/4633/2018 Guddu Raj v. State, 2018 VIAD (Delhi) 476.
17 20
State and Ors. v. Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil
(17.12.2018 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/4633/2018 Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
5|Page