REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.            OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl). No. 3220 of 2007)

Sonelal ….Appellant  

versus

State of M.P. ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench,

dismissing of the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his

conviction  for  offence  punishable  under  Section  302  of  the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) as was recorded

by learned Additional Sessions Judge,  Murwara, Katni.  

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a nutshell

is as follows:

On  24.12.1997  at  about  3.30  P.M.  Ram  Khilawan

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) resident of Khirhani

Gate, Katni went to the Hotel of Vijay after coming out of his

house  for  having  tea.  There  some  dispute  arose  between

accused Sone Lal and Ram Khilawan the deceased. Accused

Sone Lal told him taking out a knife from his pocket, "I will

finish you today". Sone Lal gave knife blow to deceased Ram

Khilawan thrice in his stomach with an intention to kill him,

whereby intestine came out of his stomach. The above  said

incident  was  witnessed  by  Sukh  Ram  Choudhary,  Vijay

Choudhary,  Lala Choudhary and many others.  Yashoda Bai

W/o  Ram  Khilawan  arrived  there  hearing  the  news  of

altercation.  Accused-Sone  Lal  fled  away from there  towards

Railway Lines after stabbing Ram Khilawan. Yashoda Bai had

brought her husband Ram Khilawan to Police Thana carrying

2

him on Rickshaw and had lodged FIR, Exhibit P-17 regarding

the  incident.   P.S.  Katni  had  sent  Ram  Khilawan  to

Government  Hospital,  Katni  vide  Exh.-P-21  for  medical

treatment.   Dr.  Arvind  Chauhadda,  Assistant  Surgeon,  had

examined  him  vide  his  Report,  Exh.-P-20.  He  had  found

injuries  on  his  person.  Injuries  had  been  inflicted  on  Ram

Khilawan’s  stomach and chest by sharp edged weapon. After

an  hour,  Ram  Khilawan  succumbed  to  his  injuries  in  the

Government Hospital,  Katni itself.  Kamal Ram, Ward boy of

Government  Hospital  had  given  death  information  of  Ram

Khilawan, vide Exh.-P15 to P.S.-Katni. P.S.-Katni entered this

information as Merg Information, Exh.-P-16. ASI B.K. Mishra

had  prepared  Panchnama  of  dead  body  of  Ram  Khilawan,

Exh.-P.-13 before the witnesses.

Assistant  Civil  Surgeon,  Dr.  S.K.  Sharma  (PW-15)

according  to  Post  mortem  Report,  Exh-P-25  found  several

injuries on the person of deceased Ram Khilawan i.e. towards

left side of Chest, towards right side of chest, towards left side

of Epigastric Region and. towards left side of stomach. These

3

injuries had been inflicted by sharp edged weapon. Membrane

of  stomach,  extruding  outside,  were  visible.  Right  and  left

Pleural  Cavity  were  ruptured.  Peritoneum  Cavity  of  the

stomach and duodenum were ruptured. Small intestine was

also  ruptured.  Death  of  Ram Khilawan was  caused  due  to

haemorrhage.

In course of investigation of the case, Sri R. K. Gupta, Sl

seized blood stained as well as plain earth from the place of

occurrence vide Seizure Memo. Exh.-P-19 and prepared Site

Plan,  Exh.-P-18.  Smt.  Yashoda  Bai  had  deposited  blood

stained shirt of  her husband, deceased Ram Khilawan with

Sri R.K. Gupta, SI and the same was seized vide Exh.P-22.

Bharat  La1  Constable  deposited  the  sealed  packet  of  Ram

Khilawan's  underwear  at  P.S.  Katni  receiving  it  back  from

Katni  Hospital,  which  was  seized  by  Exh.  P-4.  On  25th

December,  1997  accused  Sone  Lal  gave  his  statement  in

Police Custody vide Information memo Exh. P-8 that he has

kept  knife  hidden  in  the  bush  adjacent  to  Tamarind  Tree

opposite to pond located opposite the Excise Ware House and

4

he can give the recovery of the same. Thus, accused Sone Lal

handed over the knife taking out of the bushes and the same

was seized vide Exh.-P-9. One blue coloured shirt worn from

the  person  of  accused  Sone  Lal  was  seized  vide  Seizure

Memo. Exh.-P-16. Seized articles were sent to FSL, Sagar for

chemical Examination. Report of FSL, Sagar, Exh.-P-23 was

received. As per FSL Report, blood was found on the knife,

shirt and underwear seized from accused Sone Lal. Blood was

also  found  on  the  shirt  and  underwear  of  deceased  Ram

Khilawan. Even blood was found in the earth being collected

from the site.

After  completion  of  investigation,  Charge  Sheet  was

produced  by  the  Police,  Katni  in  the  Court  for  hearing  the

charges against the accused.

Since accused abjured guilt trial was held.

The  trial  Court  primarily  relied  on  the  evidence  of

Krishna Kumar (PW-6) the son of the deceased and Yashoda

5

Bai  (PW-9)  the  wife  of  the  deceased.  With  reference  to  the

evidence of PW-9 it was held that the same was trustworthy

and inspired confidence. Accordingly, the appellant was found

guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.   

In appeal, the conviction was questioned primarily on the

ground that the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 should not have been

relied  upon.  The  High  Court  found  that  the  report  of  the

incident was lodged immediately by PW-9 which was recorded

as Ext.P-17.   It  was pointed out that four others who were

named  as  alleged  eye-witnesses  did  not  support  the

prosecution version.  The High Court found that the doctor

indicated about the location of the injuries and the medical

evidence affirmed the fact that the deceased had been stabbed

several times and the blood was found on the clothes of the

deceased as well as on the knife seized from the accused.  The

knife was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made

by the accused. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

4. In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant submitted that when persons who can be treated as

6

independent  witnesses  have  not  supported  the  prosecution

version the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 should not have been

relied upon.  

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand

supported the judgment and order of the courts below.  

6. Merely  because  the  eye-witnesses  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 a ground to

discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

We  shall  also  deal  with  the  contention  regarding

interestedness  of  the  witnesses  for  furthering  prosecution

version.  Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a

witness.  It is more often than not that a relation would not

conceal  actual  culprit  and  make  allegations  against  an

innocent person.  Foundation has to be laid if  plea of false

implication is made.  In such cases, the court has to adopt a

7

careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it

is cogent and credible.

7. In  Dalip  Singh and Ors.  v.  The  State  of  Punjab (AIR

1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-

“A  witness  is  normally  to  be  considered independent  unless  he  or  she  springs  from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to  implicate  him  falsely.   Ordinarily  a  close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit  and  falsely  implicate  an  innocent person.  It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge  along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for  such  a  criticism  and  the  mere  fact  of relationship  far  from  being  a  foundation  is often a sure guarantee of truth.  However, we are  not  attempting  any  sweeping generalization.  Each case must be judged on its own facts.  Our observations are only made to  combat  what  is  so  often  put  forward  in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be  limited  to  and  be  governed  by  its  own facts.”

8

8. The  above  decision  has  since  been  followed  in  Guli

Chand and Ors. v.  State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in

which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614)

was also relied upon.

9. We may also observe that the ground that the witness

being  a  close  relative  and  consequently  being  a  partisan

witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance.  This

theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh’s

case  (supra)  in  which  surprise  was  expressed  over  the

impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of

the  Bar  that  relatives  were  not  independent  witnesses.

Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:  

“We  are  unable  to  agree  with  the  learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the  two eyewitnesses  requires  corroboration. If  the  foundation for  such an observation  is based  on  the  fact  that  the  witnesses  are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur.  This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of  this  Court  endeavoured  to  dispel  in  – ‘Rameshwar v.  State of Rajasthan’ (AIR 1952 SC  54  at  p.59).   We  find,  however,  that  it

9

unfortunately  still  persists,  if  not  in  the judgments of  the  Courts,  at  any rate  in the arguments of counsel.”

10. Again in Masalti and Ors.    v.  State of U.P.  (AIR 1965

SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):

“But it  would, we think, be unreasonable  to contend  that  evidence  given  by  witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is  evidence  of  partisan  or  interested witnesses.......The  mechanical  rejection  of such  evidence  on  the  sole  ground that  it  is partisan  would  invariably  lead  to  failure  of justice.   No  hard  and  fast  rule  can  be  laid down  as  to  how  much  evidence  should  be appreciated.   Judicial  approach  has  to  be cautious  in  dealing  with  such  evidence;  but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.”

11. To the same effect is the decisions in State of Punjab v.

Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407),  Lehna v.  State of Haryana

(2002 (3) SCC 76) and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of

Orissa (2002 (8) SCC 381).  

10

12. The  above  position  was  also  highlighted  in  Babulal

Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v.  State of Maharashtra [2005

(10) SCC 404] and in  Salim Saheb  v.  State of M.P.  (2007(1)

SCC 699).

13. The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with

the victims often results in criminal justice going away.  When

any incident happens in a dwelling house the most natural

witnesses  would  be  the  inmates  of  that  house.   It  is

unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on

outsiders  who would not have  even seen any thing.   If  the

Court  has  discerned  from  the  evidence  or  even  from  the

investigation records that some other independent person  has

witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then

there  is  justification  for  making  adverse  comments  against

non-examination  of  such  person  as  prosecution  witness.

Otherwise, merely on surmises the Court should not castigate

a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality

as  prosecution  witnesses.   Prosecution  can  be  expected  to

examine only those who have witnessed the events and not

11

those who have not seen it though the neighborhood may be

replete with other residents also. [See:  State of Rajasthan  v.

Teja Ram and Ors.  (AIR 1999 SC 1776)].

14. In  the instant case,  the evidence  of  PWs 6 and 9 has

been analysed in great detail by the trial Court and the High

Court. The trial Court with reference to the evidence of PWs 6

and  9  noted  that  their  version  fits  in  within  the  medical

evidence.  

15. It  appears  from  the  report  of  the  Forensic  Science

Laboratory  that  blood  found  on  the  knife  seized  from  the

accused matched with the blood found on the underwear of

the  deceased.   PW-6  in  his  evidence  stated  that  he  had

sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. The inevitable

conclusion is that there is no merit  in this appeal  which is

accordingly dismissed.  

……………….………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

12

…………….……………………..J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, July 22, 2008   

13

14