Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

(16) CONDUCT OF WITNESS AND CONDUCT OF ACCUSED
Section 3 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Eye-witness not disclosing name of assailant for a day and halfcredibility
– State of Orissa vs. Brahmananda – AIR 1976 SC 2488.
Eye-witness – not informing about the incident till the third day to anyone – Unnatural conduct –
Unsafe to rely upon their testimony – Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab – 1996 SCC (Cri) 312.
Eye-witness not disclosing the fact to anybody that he being an eye-witness till the next day conduct
unnatural - not safe to sustain conviction – Joseph vs. State of Kerala – 2003 SCC (Cri) 356.
Conduct of Accused:-
The conduct of the accused would be relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act if his
immediate reactions to the illegal overture of the complainant or his action in inserting unwanted something
in his pocket were revealed in the form of acts accompanied then and there are immediately thereafter by
words or gestures reliably established – Maha Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) – AIR 1976 SC
449.
In the present case of murder it has been pointed out before us that according to witness
inconsistency as to exhortation directed against one or both deceased- cannot be said to be fatal when
evidence of eye witnesses otherwise appears to be identical. Umar Mohammed and others vs State of
Rajasthan 2008 Cri. L.J. 816.
If the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is
allegation of interestedness the same has to be established mere statement that being relatives of the
deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be ground to discard the evidence which is
otherwise cogent and credible. Daulatram Sadram Teli vs State of Chattisgarh 2008 Cri.L.J. 4587.
1) LALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 634].
HEAD NOTE (B). Criminal Trial - Witnesses - Related witness – Plea of partiality - Sustainability
of - Sections 302 and 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the
contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason
to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
(2) MALLANNA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 731].
HEAD NOTE (D). Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Related witness – Merely because of the witnesses
being related or interested or not injured, their evidence cannot be discarded if the same is
42