Reliability

Mere close relationship of the deceased with witnesses is not a criteria to believe or disbelieve their evidence.

Receipt of grievous hurt by an eye-witness in a murder incident though was a factor which reflected positively upon his presence at the spot but it was not a conclusive proof about the truth of his deposition

For handing down guilty verdict to an accused in such incident, the testimony of an injured eye-witness was still required to be tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down for the appraisal of evidence

To say that an injured witness of murder incident seldom told lie might be true in a case of single accused but was an overstatement when the number of assailants was more than one

However, it would wholly be unjust to raise the superstructure of conviction on the deposition of injured witness, without subjecting it to strict test of scrutiny for adjudging his credibility.

Witness who denied admitted facts could not be termed as reliable witness.

Statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was more reliable as compared to the statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Evidence of inimical eye-witnesses, could be relied upon, provided the same was confidence inspiring, and was corroborated by some independent evidence.

No hard and fast rule that any person who was closely related with the complainant or deceased, would always be untrue and interested witness, nor could it be said with all force and universal application that any person who was stranger, and was not related to the deceased would always be true witness

When court had to appreciate evidence given by the witnesses, who were partisan or interested, it had to be very careful in weighing such evidence.