LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of evidence from related witnesses and a child witness in a murder case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Ganapathi & Anr. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
Judgment Date: 27 March 2018
Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 241
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can the testimony of family members and a young child be the sole basis for a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a double homicide, where the primary witnesses were relatives of the deceased and a minor. The Court examined the reliability of such testimonies and upheld the conviction of the accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Murugan and Poomari. Murugan had married Muthulakshmi (Accused No. 4) on 5th February 1999, following a love affair and a police intervention. However, their marriage was fraught with conflict, leading to Muthulakshmi returning to her parental home. On 4th August 1999, Murugan was attacked near a street hotel by Ponnu (A1), Ganapathi (A2), and Chitravelu (A3). Ganapathi stabbed Murugan, and Chitravelu inflicted cut injuries, resulting in Murugan’s death. Later that day, Poomari, along with her daughter Sakunthala (PW3), was attacked near a well. Chitravelu and Ganapathi attacked Poomari, and then Muthulakshmi also inflicted injuries on Poomari, leading to her death. The primary witnesses to these events were Armugam (PW1), Murugan’s father; Poomurugan (PW2), Murugan’s brother; and Sakunthala (PW3), Poomari’s ten-year-old daughter.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 5th February 1999 | Marriage of Murugan and Muthulakshmi. |
| After 5th February 1999 | Frequent quarrels and rifts between the families of Murugan and Muthulakshmi. |
| About a month after marriage | Muthulakshmi leaves her matrimonial home. |
| 4th August 1999 | Murugan attacked and killed near a street hotel. |
| 4th August 1999 | Poomari attacked and killed near a well. |
| 5th August 1999 | Accused arrested. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court found all four accused guilty. Ponnu (A1) was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Ganapathi (A2) and Chitravelu (A3) were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for two counts of murder. Muthulakshmi (A4) was also convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court upheld the convictions of A2, A3, and A4, but acquitted A1. The present appeals before the Supreme Court are filed by A2, A3 and A4 against their conviction.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) states, “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” The case also touches on the principles of evidence, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses who are related to the deceased or are children.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the lower courts erred in relying on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who are the father and brother of the deceased, respectively, and therefore, are interested witnesses. They contended that the High Court, while disbelieving their evidence against A1, should not have relied on the same evidence to convict A2 and A3. Further, they argued that the lack of independent witnesses at the scene of Murugan’s murder casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. Regarding A4, the defense argued that the testimony of PW3, a ten-year-old child, should not be given weight, especially since the school headmaster (DW1) testified that PW3 was present in school at the time of the incident, supported by the school attendance register (Ext. D1).
The State contended that the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of accused nos. 2 to 4. The State argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was corroborated with medical evidence. The State also argued that the evidence of PW3 was also corroborated with the medical evidence.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Reliability of PW1 and PW2 |
|
| Reliability of PW3 |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the evidence of related witnesses.
- Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the evidence of a child witness.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the evidence of related witnesses. | The Court held that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was reliable, as they were natural witnesses and their testimonies were consistent and corroborated with medical evidence. The Court held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. |
| Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the accused based on the evidence of a child witness. | The Court held that the evidence of PW3 was credible and corroborated with medical evidence. The Court also noted that the school attendance register was unreliable as all students were marked as present irrespective of their attendance. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court cited this case to clarify that a witness is considered ‘interested’ only if they benefit from the litigation’s outcome, not merely because they are related to the victim. A natural witness who is the only possible eye witness cannot be said to be interested. |
| Maranadu and Anr . Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that the evidence of family members should not be discarded solely based on their relationship with the deceased. The Court held that when there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased. | The Court held that PWs 1 and 2 were natural witnesses, and their testimonies were consistent and credible. The Court also held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. |
| Evidence of PW3 is unreliable as she was present in school at the time of the incident. | The Court found the school attendance register unreliable, as all students were marked present, and upheld the credibility of PW3’s testimony. |
Authorities:
The Supreme Court relied on State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752* to distinguish between ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witnesses, stating that a witness is considered ‘interested’ only if they benefit from the litigation’s outcome, not merely because they are related to the victim. The Court also relied on Maranadu and Anr . Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529* to emphasize that the evidence of family members should not be discarded solely based on their relationship with the deceased.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the credibility of the witnesses and the corroboration of their testimonies with medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically render their testimony unreliable. The consistency and naturalness of their accounts, coupled with the medical findings, were key considerations. Additionally, the Court noted that the school attendance register was unreliable, thus not discrediting the child witness.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Witnesses | 40% |
| Corroboration with Medical Evidence | 30% |
| Unreliability of School Attendance Register | 20% |
| Natural Witness Testimony | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 55% |
| Law | 45% |
The fact:law ratio indicates that while legal principles were considered, the factual evidence and witness testimonies played a slightly more significant role in the Court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court found no error in the appreciation of evidence or any error of law in the judgment passed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were credible, consistent, and corroborated with medical evidence. The Court also rejected the argument that the school attendance register discredits the testimony of PW3.
The Court quoted, “Related is not equivalent to ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.”
The Court further stated, “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.”
The Court also noted, “Here in the case, PWs 1 and 2, though father and brother of the deceased, are natural witnesses and there is no bar in law in examining family members or any other person as witnesses.”
Key Takeaways
- The testimony of family members can be the basis for a conviction if it is found to be credible, consistent, and corroborated with other evidence.
- A witness is considered ‘interested’ only if they benefit from the litigation’s outcome, not merely because they are related to the victim.
- The evidence of a child witness is admissible and can be relied upon if it is found to be credible and consistent.
- School attendance registers may not always be reliable and cannot be used to discredit a witness’s testimony without further scrutiny.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of related witnesses and child witnesses can be the basis of conviction if their testimony is found to be credible and consistent. The case clarifies that the term ‘interested’ witness has a specific legal meaning and does not simply refer to a relative of the victim. This ruling reinforces the principle that the courts should evaluate evidence based on its merits and not on the relationship of the witness to the parties involved. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ganapathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu reaffirms the importance of evaluating witness testimonies based on their credibility and consistency, irrespective of their relationship with the victim. The Court’s decision to uphold the conviction underscores the principle that family members and child witnesses can provide reliable evidence in criminal cases, if their testimonies are found to be credible and corroborated with other evidence.