Ajay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

CRA, 1330 of 2008, Judgment Date: Oct 16, 2019

Law laid down -

1. Evidence Act- ‘Related’ and “Interested” Witness” - ‘related’ is not equivalent into ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he derives some benefits from the result of the litigation or in seeing the accused person punished. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration. The Court is obliged to examine such evidence with great care, caution and circumspection.

2. ‘Related’ and ‘interested’ witness – The statement of P.W. 1 clearly shows that the accused persons and appellant were in inimical relation because of a property dispute. There were joint properties on which both the sides were claiming right. Hence, in absence of proper cooperation, it is not safe to accept the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses. They must be treated as interested witnesses in the facts of this case.

3. Ocular – Medical Evidence – If there exists a contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence, it can be held that the testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis the medical evidence. However, if medical evidence makes ocular testimony improbable, it becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence. If the prosecution witnesses on which judgment of conviction is based, are held to be interested witness and expert evidence does not support the prosecution case, appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.

4. Injury by lethal weapon (gun in this case) - where death is caused by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are  alleged to have been caused.

Ajay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.