Criminal Antecedents Of A Witness Do Not Operate As Disqualification, Testimony To Be Assessed With Caution Not Suspicion: Calcutta High Court

"Character/criminal antecedents of a witness cannot and does not impact the events witnessed by him or her. This is regardless of whether the witness has enmity against the person involved in the said events," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the criminal history or antecedents of a witness do not automatically disqualify their testimony or render them unreliable.

A bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that while the evidence of such witnesses must be scrutinized with care, it cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their character. The Court noted that the "credibility of a witness falls in the subjective satisfaction of the Court to be formed based on objective criteria."

The case involved an appeal against a 2017 conviction where six individuals were found guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and various provisions of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the victim was killed due to political rivalry, with the primary appellants firing gunshots and inflicting sharp-cutting injuries. The defense argued that the prosecution's eye-witnesses (PW 1-4) were "interested witnesses" with several criminal cases pending against them, suggesting a motive for false implication.

The primary question before the court was whether the criminal antecedents and the "interested" nature of the eye-witnesses, who were co-accused in other cases against the appellants, vitiated their testimony. The court also determined whether the absence of a ballistic report and the non-production of the victim's blood-stained clothes were fatal to the prosecution's case.

Witness Character Not A Principal Issue In Criminal Trials

The Court emphasized that in any criminal trial, it is the accused who is under trial, not the witness. Referencing Sections 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, the bench noted that while evidence relating to the character of an accused is relevant, the character of a witness is never a principal issue. The Court clarified that the credibility of a witness is not to be assessed through a "straitjacket formula" based on whether they are accused in other criminal cases.

The bench further explained that the principle of the presumption of innocence extends even to a person who has turned witness while being accused of a crime elsewhere. It observed that the character or past criminal records of a witness do not impact the actual events witnessed by them.

Mechanism For Impeaching Witness Credibility Under Evidence Act

Discussing Sections 146, 153, and 155 of the Evidence Act, the Court highlighted the specific legal mechanisms available to shake the credit of a witness. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, which established that no witness should be cited to contradict another if the evidence is only intended to shake their credit, unless they deny a previous conviction or facts suggesting lack of impartiality.

In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution witnesses had admitted to the criminal cases pending against them during cross-examination. Therefore, since there was no denial of these facts, their impartiality could not be impeached solely on those grounds.

Approach Toward Interested And Related Witnesses

The Court reiterated the established legal position that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be automatically discarded. Citing Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry), the bench held that the approach must not be pedantic and the court must be "cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence."

Regarding the victim's son (PW 1), the Court noted that a close relative is often the most natural witness and would be the last person to "screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person." The Court found that PW 1's testimony regarding the primary assault by Mongala Sardar and Bapan Sardar had withstood the test of cross-examination.

Absence Of Ballistic Report Not Fatal Where Eye-Witness Testimony Is Credible

The appellants argued that the failure to link the recovered pipe gun to the crime through a ballistic report created a gap in the prosecution's story. However, the Court referred to the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Ram Singh V. The State Of U.P., which held that obtaining a ballistic report is not an inflexible rule.

The Court noted that since the bullets had exited the victim's body and were not recovered, a correlation was impossible. It held that "when there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case."

Recovery Under Section 27 Of Evidence Act Links Accused To Crime

The bench placed heavy reliance on the recovery of the murder weapons—a pipe gun and a 'Da'—from a manure pit based on the disclosure statements made by Mongala Sardar and Bapan Sardar. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, this discovery linked the appellants to the concealed weapons and corroborated the medical evidence provided by the post-mortem doctor.

The Court observed that the disclosure of the place of concealment established the "mental awareness" of the two appellants regarding the weapons used in the offense, which "clearly links the appellants Mongala and Bapan to the offence."

Distinction Between Investigative Defects and Substratum of Offence

Addressing the non-production of blood-stained apparel and the absence of labels on seizure lists, the Court categorized these as "investigative defects." It held that minor omissions by the prosecution are not fatal when the foundation of the offense is clearly established. The Court distinguished the case from Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that the substratum of the crime was well-proven in the instant matter.

However, the Court found no clear evidence regarding the specific roles of the other three appellants. It noted that while they were named in the FIR for encircling the victim, no specific acts of assault or premeditation were established during the trial beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of Mongala Sardar and Bapan Sardar, dismissing their appeals. Conversely, the Court allowed the appeals of the other three appellants, setting aside their convictions and ordering their immediate release, noting that the appeal against the deceased appellant, Karna Ghosh, stood abated.

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026