Mere Relationship with the Deceased Does Not Render a Witness Unreliable: Calcutta High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Brutal Murder

Absence of Independent Witnesses and Non-Recovery of Weapons Cannot Shake a Strong Prosecution Case - In a landmark decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of multiple accused in the murder of Srihari Mondal, rejecting the argument that the prosecution's case was weak due to the reliance on related witnesses, the absence of independent witnesses, and the non-recovery of the murder weapons.

Delivering the judgment, a bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that a witness cannot be discredited merely because of their familial relationship with the victim. The Court declared, "Relatives of a victim are natural witnesses, and their testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship. What matters is whether their evidence is consistent, credible, and corroborated by independent material."

The accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the brutal killing of Srihari Mondal, who was dragged, assaulted with deadly weapons, and left with near-amputation of his left knee and right shoulder, as confirmed by the post-mortem report. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000, a verdict that was challenged in appeal.

"Common Intention Does Not Require Identification of Who Inflicted Which Injury"
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish the exact role of each accused and that the specific injuries inflicted by each individual were not identified. They also contended that there was no evidence to prove that all the accused shared a common intention to commit the murder.

Rejecting this argument, the Court emphasized, "When multiple accused attack a person with deadly weapons, it is not necessary to prove the exact role played by each one. The very act of participating in such a brutal assault establishes their common intention."

The Court observed that the accused carried knives, axes, rods, and other deadly weapons and repeatedly assaulted the victim, causing fatal injuries. In such cases, the prosecution is not required to pinpoint which accused inflicted which particular wound. The Court ruled, "When the nature of the assault is such that it leaves no doubt about the shared intent of the assailants, common intention under Section 34 IPC stands established beyond doubt."

"Eyewitness Testimonies Cannot Be Rejected Solely for Being Related to the Victim"

A key defense argument was that all six eyewitnesses (PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 9, PW 10, and PW 12) were family members of the deceased, making their testimonies unreliable. The High Court firmly dismissed this contention, stating, "A related witness is not necessarily an interested witness. They are often the most natural witnesses, present at the scene due to their close connection with the victim. The test is whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated."

Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005 SCC (Cri) 1213) and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2009 1 SCC (Cri) 773), the Court emphasized, "There is no rule that the testimony of a related witness must be discarded. If their statements are cogent and supported by independent evidence, their credibility remains intact."

The High Court noted that all six eyewitnesses provided a clear, detailed, and consistent account of the crime, which was further corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. Their testimonies matched the injuries recorded in the post-mortem report, reinforcing their credibility. "There is not a single material contradiction in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Their presence at the scene is natural, and their statements withstand scrutiny," the Court observed.

"Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses Does Not Weaken Prosecution’s Case"

The defense further argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, such as the rickshaw puller and tea stall owner, who were allegedly present at the scene. The Court, however, held that the failure to examine independent witnesses does not automatically render the prosecution’s case weak if the available evidence is strong and credible.

Citing Kanakarajan v. State of Kerala (2017) 13 SCC 597 and Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 13 SCC 716, the Court observed, "Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal when the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent, and trustworthy."

The Court emphasized, "The prosecution is not obligated to produce every person who may have witnessed the crime. If the witnesses examined are reliable and their testimonies are corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the case stands proven beyond reasonable doubt."

"Non-Recovery of Weapons Is Not Fatal When Eyewitness Evidence Is Overwhelming"
The defense also contended that no murder weapons were seized, and no fingerprint analysis was conducted on any potential weapons, making the prosecution’s case unreliable.

Rejecting this argument, the Court stated, "The non-recovery of the weapon used in a crime is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. When there is direct evidence from multiple eyewitnesses and corroboration from medical reports, the absence of the weapon does not create a doubt."

The post-mortem report confirmed multiple deep-cut wounds consistent with the use of sharp weapons, aligning with the eyewitness accounts of the accused using knives, axes, and iron rods. The Court observed, "The injuries found on the victim’s body are fully consistent with the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The non-recovery of the weapons does not shake the core of the prosecution's case."

"Gruesome Nature of the Crime Justifies Life Imprisonment"
The post-mortem examination revealed the sheer brutality of the attack, including:

•    Near-amputation of the left knee and right shoulder
•    Multiple deep wounds on the forehead and face
•    Severe fractures and dislocations
The Court noted, "The number of injuries, their severity, and the type of weapons used make it evident that the accused acted with the clear intent to kill."

The appellants had also challenged their sentence of life imprisonment, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove common intention beyond doubt. The Court firmly rejected this claim, holding that "Given the brutal nature of the attack, the life sentence awarded to the accused is appropriate and justified."

Concluding the judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the conviction and life imprisonment of the accused. The Court directed, "The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed."

By upholding the life imprisonment of the accused, the Court has sent a strong message against brutal, premeditated crimes and reaffirmed the importance of cogent and consistent eyewitness testimonies in securing justice.

Date of Decision: February 18, 2025