Evidence of an interested witness is admissible or not in criminal proceedings. My husband is an accused in murder of his relative. There was some dispute regarding the property but he was not actually involved in the crime. He was present there but not participated in the crime. but he is arrayed as a prime offender. prosecution has produced only two witnesses in the case. One is the real son and another is an injured person.
The real son was not present at the scene but he later on reached there after coming to know about the offence. The witness deposed that there was a dispute between the accused and deceased, he immediately reached and saw that the accused were beating the deceased and hurling abuses, when I reached the accused flee. Due to injuries sustained by the deceased he died.
He deposed that both accused were beaten by the deceased. whereas my husband was only present there. please advise whether evidence of such an interested witness is reliable and admissible?
Asked from: Andhra Pradesh
It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is an interested witness. Rejection of evidence solely on this premise would amount to a failure of justice, as authoritatively held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202.
Ordinarily, an “interested witness” is understood to be one who has a direct or indirect stake in the outcome of the case. While close relatives of the victim—such as a son, daughter, husband, or wife—may be described as related witnesses, their presence at the scene of occurrence, particularly where the offence is committed within the confines of a house or private place, renders them natural witnesses. In such circumstances, their evidence cannot be discarded merely because of their relationship with the deceased.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that it is a well-established principle of law that the testimony of a witness, if otherwise credible and trustworthy, cannot be rejected solely on the ground that he is related to the deceased and is, therefore, an interested witness.
In the present case, the son of the deceased cannot be termed an interested witness in the legal sense; he is a natural witness to the occurrence. The incident admittedly took place within the house of the deceased, and no independent person was present at the time of commission of the offence. A related witness does not ipso facto become an interested witness.
The distinction between a “related witness” and an “interested witness” has been lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328, wherein it was held that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness. A witness can be said to be “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the outcome of the litigation—such as a decree in a civil suit or the conviction of an accused in a criminal trial.
Furthermore, in Satbir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2009 SC 2163, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not a sound principle of law that the prosecution case must fail merely because the witnesses examined are not independent. The absence of independent witnesses, by itself, is not a ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence.
It is now a well settled principle of law that only because the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon.
In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is evident that the testimony of related witnesses is legally admissible and can form the basis of conviction, provided it inspires confidence and is found credible. There exists no rule of law mandating rejection of such evidence solely for want of independent corroboration. The evidence of the witnesses in the present case is reliable, admissible, and worthy of acceptance.
