15. The High Court in the appeal, rejected the plea of the appellants attempt to discredit the three eyewitnesses by observing that while it may be possible that the eyewitnesses may not have witnessed the actual assault but as they immediately reached the field on hearing the shrieks of Madhavji, their testimony on the accused being armed with lethal weapons and fleeing the spot soon after the assault, cannot be discarded. The High Court found consistency in the testimony of the eyewitnesses and noted that the injuries attributed by the eyewitnesses to the accused, is corroborated by the medical evidence. It was then concluded that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Trial Court and the appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

16. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. T. Mahipal submits that the evidence of PW3 and PW12 should be discarded as they are the children of the deceased. He then submits that because of past enmity, the appellants were falsely implicated. The counsel also refers to few of the witnesses not supporting the prosecution version.

17. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, the learned Dy. AG for the State of Madhya Pradesh argues that the evidence of the 3 eyewitnesses conclusively support the prosecution case. She then submits that medical evidence and injuries corroborate the oral testimonies. According to the learned counsel, bitter relationship of the two groups provide a clear motive for the accused to attack the victim.

18. Let us now consider the law on evidentiary value of a related witness. Commenting on the aspect, Justice Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1953 SC 364] rightly opined that;

“25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses 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 vs. The State of Rajasthan. We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.”
26. 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 relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person…….”

19. It may further be noted that Babu Lal (PW11) is an unrelated witness. His testimony substantially supports the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all material particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased does not necessarily mean that they will falsely implicate innocent persons. In this context, it was appropriately observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass [(1972) 3 SCC 201]

“23………………….It is well known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant……………….”

20. Again in a later decision of this Court in Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2018) 7 SCC 429] one of us, Justice N.V. Ramana on the issue of evidence of a related witness was justified in declaring that:

“31. 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 (See Harbans Kaur vs. State of Haryana)”

The above precedents make it amply clear that the testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were immediately present at the spot and identified the accused with various deadly weapons in their hands.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant next refers to the defence version of the injuries being caused through a fall on the Nullah and the old enmity being the cause for implicating the accused. On this issue, we may benefit by adverting to the observation of Justice Faizan Uddin in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [(1995) Supp 1 SCC 363]  where the learned Judge so correctly observed:

“8…………….It goes without saying that enmity is a double-edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false implication. In the present case there is evidence to establish motive and when the prosecution adduced positive evidence showing the direct involvement of the accused in the crime, motive assumes importance. The evidence of interested witnesses and those who are related to the deceased cannot be thrown out simply for that reason. But if after applying the rule of caution their evidence is found to be reliable and corroborated by independent evidence there is no reason to discard their evidence but it has to be accepted as reliable………….”

22. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our assessment, aid the defence in the present matter.

23. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that few of the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were declared to be hostile. But there are enough material evidence and trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the prosecution need not fail on this count alone. Some witness may not support the prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other available evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In this case, it is seen that the prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned Trial Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires confidence. We are therefore of the view that the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants.

24. Proceeding on the above basis and on careful examination of the manner in which the learned Trial Judge analysed the evidence and rendered his verdict, the conviction of the appellants according to our assessment, was rightly ordered and correctly upheld by the High Court. It is declared accordingly.

25. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.