Witness

Mere relationship of the witnesses with the victim would not discard his/her evidence if it is otherwise confidence-inspiring and trustworthy

Related witness could not be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances

Related witness could also be a natural witness.

If it is found that the testimony of the related witness got no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter as such, which could not be expected from a prudent person, then the evidence furnished by related witnesses can be easily discarded.

No doubt mere relationship of a witness could not be a ground to discard his evidence, however, testimony of such witness was to be scrutinized with great care and caution, and especially the same should not be relied upon, without corroboration, for sustaining conviction on a capital charge.

Chance witness is a witness who claims that he was present at the crime spot well in time though his presence in ordinary course of business was a sheer chance

Testimony of chance witness is always to be examined by the Courts with a hard look as in normal course the presumption would be that such witness was not present at the crime spot.

Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a related witness, but it is only a rule of prudence

Rule of caution is that the evidence of related witness is scrutinized with some extra caution

Once the Court is satisfied that the witness was present at the scene of occurrence and his evidence inspires confidence, the same cannot be discarded on the sole ground of relationship with the deceased or chance witness.

No doubt the evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of his relationship with the complainant party, but his evidence must be scrutinized with a greater degree of circumspection.

Not necessary that a witness, who is neither related to complainant nor inimical towards the accused, always speaks true

It is the duty of the court to scrutinize the statement of such witness with utmost care and caution.

Injured witness will not be relied upon ipso facto because of injuries, but it is to be examined whether his evidence is trustworthy and confidence inspiring.

Witness being related did not make him an interested and unreliable witness, unless he had reason to falsely implicate the accused or he was biased, partisan or inimical to the accused.

Police witnesses were as reliable as any other witness unless any ill will or enmity had been attributed to them.

Sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eyewitness is always sufficient to establish guilt of the accused if the same is confidence-inspiring and trustworthy and supported by other independent source of evidence because the law considers quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge.

If statement of a witness was disbelieved in respect of co-accused then the conviction could not sustain alone on the basis of statement of such witness unless they were corroborated by corroborative evidence which come from independent source and unimpeachable nature.

Mere relation of witness with the deceased was no ground to discard their testimonies if their evidence was found entirely independent and truthful, therefore, their testimony, without looking for any other corroborative evidence, would alone be sufficient to establish the charge

Evidence of related witnesses who were not found inimical and were confidence-inspiring would hardly need any corroboration.

No doubt a witness who has been declared hostile will not become unworthy of reliance, and his evidence cannot be brushed aside if found true and credible, but since said witness has spoken in two different voices and two different tones, his evidence has to be assessed with much more care and circumspection

May be said witness is telling the truth when exonerating the accused, or he is telling the truth when charging him

Only those voices and tones of witnesses can be considered worthy of reliance supported by sources essentially unimpeachable because one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another.

No doubt, evidence of a related witness can not be discarded on the ground of his being related to the victim, but if it is found that the testimony of a related witness gets no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by him at the time of occurrence or just thereafter is such which can not be expected from a prudent person, then in such circumstance the evidence furnished by a related witness can easily be discarded.

Rule of prudence required that the testimony of child witness should not be relied upon unless it was corroborated by some cogent evidence on the record.

Contradictions would be considered fatal for the prosecution case which materially affect the ocular account.

No doubt, evidence provided by closely related eye-witness is as good as given by another independent witness having no relations with the victim

However, before placing reliance on the ocular account of the related witness the Courts always look for independent source which could corroborate such evidence and same is taken into consideration only for recording conviction of the accused if same is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence and (others) factors of the case.

Witnesses having no respect for truth and being capable of changing their versions as and when it suited them, were worthy of no credence, even if they were found to be natural witnesses.

Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected because of his age factor rather the test of competency of a witness is his capacity to understand the questions and to give rational answers.

Belated examination of a witness without plausible explanation annuls his credibility.

Not necessary that there should be numerous infirmities; if there was one which impeached the credibility of the witness that might be made the entire statement doubtful.

Injury on a witness is only indication of his presence at the spot but is not affirmative proof of his credibility and truthfulness

Each and every word coming from the mouth of injured person is not truth

Mere presence of injuries would not stamp that he is a truthful witness

Testimony of injured witness is to be tested and appraised on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness.

Chance witness is a witness who claims that he was present at the crime spot at the fateful event notwithstanding, his presence there was per sheer chance as in the ordinary course of events he was supposed to be present at same other place

Testimony of chance witness in such context is ordinarily not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the spot at relevant time

In normal course of events presumption under the law that would operate would be that such witness was not present at the crime spot.

Courts always deprecated such kind of statement, which was made with the purpose to strengthen the case of the prosecution at the behest of the Police Officials or some other ulterior motive to get the suspect convicted by hook and crook.

Common set of witnesses could be used for recording acquittal and conviction against the accused persons who were charged for the commission of same offence.

Once a witness was found to have lied about a material aspect of a case, it could not then be safely assumed that the said witness would declare the truth about any other aspect of the case

Testimony of one detected in a lie was wholly worthless and must of necessity be rejected

If a witness was not coming out with the whole truth then his evidence was liable to be discarded as a whole meaning thereby that his evidence could not be used either for convicting accused or acquitting some of them facing trial in the same case.

Merely the injuries on the body of a person would not stamp him/her a truthful witness.

Police Officials are as good witnesses unless proved that they are having ill will or animosity against the accused/convict.

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

Chance witness has to plausibly/reasonably explain and prove reason of his presence at the time and place of occurrence.

Mere presence of injury on the person of prosecution witness does not stamp him to be a truthful witness.

Court is required to ascertain, if the witness either by writing or sign could make intelligible of what he had to speak

If such witness is able to communicate his statement perfectly by writing, it would be more satisfactory method of taking evidence

When such witness is unable to write, then he can make signs showing what he wants to say

If it is by signs, those signs must be recorded by the Trial Court and not only the interpretations of those signs

Court should be able to know whether the interpretation of the sign is correct or not

Not safe for a Trial Court to embark upon the examination of a deaf and dumb person on its own without help of an expert or a person familiar with his mode of conveying ideas to others in day to day life

Interpreter should not be an interested person, who had participated in the investigation and who is a witness in the same trial

Interpreter should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he should be administrated oath.

Testimony of a chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

Presumption would be that he was not present in normal course, at the crime spot

Testimony of a chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence at the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt.

Testimony of chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise his testimony will fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. [Para. 4 of the judgment]

Witness who made material improvements during trial, his testimony would remain of no worth for prosecution.

Testimony of chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time

In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot

Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise testimony of chance witness would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. [Para. 5 of the judgment]

Sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eye-witness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidence-inspiring and trustworthy and supported by other independent source of evidence because the law considered the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge

However, the accused can be convicted if the Court finds the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.

Interested witness is not one who is relative or friend of the deceased, but is one who has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.

Evidence of police witness is as good as any other witness and can be relied upon.

Evidence of related witness could not be discarded unless there was some ill will or enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused.

Evidence of related witness could not be discarded unless there was some ill will or enmity between the witnesses and the accused.

Police Officials are as good witnesses as any other private witnesses and their evidence is subject to same standard of proof and the principles of the scrutiny as applicable to any other category of witnesses

In absence of any animus, infirmity or flaw in their evidence, their testimony can be relied upon without demur.

Where, in the evidence, prosecution established its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt there were some minor contradictions which always were in each and every case the same might be ignored.

Interested witness is not the one who is relative or friend but is the one who has a motive to falsely implicate an accused.

Mere relationship of the eye-witness with the deceased alone is not enough to discard the testimony of the said witness.

Police Officials were as good as private witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were Police Officials unless the defence succeeded in giving dent to the statements of prosecution/ police witnesses and proved their mala fide or ill-will against accused.

If the testimony of a related/interested witness found no corroboration by independent pieces of evidence, then the evidence furnished by a related/interested witness could be discarded.

Mere relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased or complainant did not declare the eye-witness as interested, if his/her evidence was confidence inspiring and corroborated by independent source.

Interested witness was not the one who was relative or friend but was the one who had a motive to falsely implicate an accused.