The Supreme Court stated that the testimony of witnesses cannot be ignored just because they are family members.
The Supreme Court noted that just because witnesses are related, it doesn’t mean their testimony should be ignored. Instead, their statements need to be examined more carefully. The Court pointed out that the incident happened during a sudden and intense fight, provoked by the deceased, and there was no proof that the accused acted cruelly. The appeal was against the Patna High Court’s decision, which upheld the Additional Sessions Judge’s ruling that convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to life in prison.
The Division Bench, made up of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, stated that the evidence showed there was no planning involved. The fight started over a minor issue between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant seemed to lose control and attacked the deceased with a knife. AOR Smarhar Singh represented the Appellant, while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah represented the Respondent. The deceased’s husband, PW-5-Ranglal Yadav, claimed that on November 9, 2015, the appellant, who was renting from him, got angry about bricks being removed from the door. He alleged that the appellant began to insult the deceased, and when she protested, he stabbed her in the chest with a knife, causing serious injuries before fleeing. The FIR also mentioned that the deceased was taken to a hospital, where she later died.
After the investigation was finished, a charge sheet was submitted to the ACJM. The appellant received a life sentence. Unhappy with this decision, the appellant appealed to the High Court, but the appeal was rejected. Consequently, the appellant took the case to the Apex Court. Singh, representing the appellant, argued that all witnesses were biased as they were relatives of the deceased. He pointed out that aside from their testimonies, there was no other evidence against the appellant. He also claimed that the case should be classified under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, stating there was no premeditation and that the incident occurred suddenly during a fight provoked by the deceased.
On the other hand, Amanullah, for the Respondent, argued that five eyewitnesses consistently identified the appellant, and the injury was to the chest, a critical area. He asserted that the lower courts correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. After reviewing the witness evidence, the Bench noted that the prosecution had established the appellant’s responsibility for the deceased’s death. Addressing the issue of witness relationships, the Bench stated that being related to the deceased does not invalidate their testimony, but such testimonies should be examined with extra care.
In this case, the Bench observed that someone removed a brick from a pile owned by the appellant. Upset by this, the appellant began to insult Ranglal Yadav’s wife (PW-5). She responded by warning him to stop the abuse. Evidence from Bidya Sagar Yadav (PW-4) indicated that the deceased challenged the appellant, saying he could try to kill her if he was brave enough. Following this, the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife. The Bench concluded that the incident arose from a sudden and intense argument provoked by the deceased. The evidence showed that only one injury was inflicted, and there was no indication that the appellant acted cruelly or took advantage of the situation.
The Bench determined that the appellant qualified for the exception under Section 300 of the IPC. As a result, they partially granted the appeal, changing his conviction from Section 302 to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Given that the appellant had already spent nearly ten years in prison, the Bench ruled that he would serve no additional time.
Cause Title: Hare Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 936]
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Smarhar Singh, Advocates Shweta Kumari, Pankaj Prakash, Mohd Asim, Manoj Kumar, Vikas Chopra
Respondent: AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Advocate Rebecca Mishra
