Even if witnesses to a crime belong to a political faction that is opposed to the accused, their testimonies need not be discarded for that reason alone if otherwise acceptable, says the Kerala High Court.
Justice B Sudheendra Kumar gave the ruling while upholding the life imprisonments imposed on 8 CPI(M) activists who were convicted for murdering an RSS leader, Vattappara Shaji, on November 17, 2002. Of the three eye witnesses (occurrence witnesses) relied upon by the prosecution, one was an RSS activist and the others were RSS sympathizers, it was alleged in the appeals.
The counsel representing the convicted CPI(M) men argued at the high court that they were interested and partisan witnesses who maintain hostile animus against the appellants and that their testimonies cannot be relied upon.
While deciding to accept their testimonies, the high court said in cases where the witnesses belong to the opposite political faction of the accused, the court has to be vigilant and cautious and their testimonies must be tested for trustworthiness and credibility.
Ruling that the testimonies of the witnesses in the case are acceptable as they are natural and creditworthy, the court said in the judgment, "We have scrutinized the evidence PW1 to PW3 meticulously and we are fully convinced that in spite of minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 remains within the zone of credibility. In the said circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since PW1 to PW3 are interested witnesses, their evidence has to be discarded on that reason alone, cannot be accepted."
Justice B Sudheendra Kumar gave the ruling while upholding the life imprisonments imposed on 8 CPI(M) activists who were convicted for murdering an RSS leader, Vattappara Shaji, on November 17, 2002. Of the three eye witnesses (occurrence witnesses) relied upon by the prosecution, one was an RSS activist and the others were RSS sympathizers, it was alleged in the appeals.
The counsel representing the convicted CPI(M) men argued at the high court that they were interested and partisan witnesses who maintain hostile animus against the appellants and that their testimonies cannot be relied upon.
While deciding to accept their testimonies, the high court said in cases where the witnesses belong to the opposite political faction of the accused, the court has to be vigilant and cautious and their testimonies must be tested for trustworthiness and credibility.
Ruling that the testimonies of the witnesses in the case are acceptable as they are natural and creditworthy, the court said in the judgment, "We have scrutinized the evidence PW1 to PW3 meticulously and we are fully convinced that in spite of minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 remains within the zone of credibility. In the said circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since PW1 to PW3 are interested witnesses, their evidence has to be discarded on that reason alone, cannot be accepted."
Comments
Post a Comment