Relationship Between Father And Son Does Not Automatically Disqualify Them As Credible Witnesses – Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of an accused for stabbing his neighbour, ruling that the consistent testimony of the victim and his son, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee dismissed the appeal, observing that “picayune variations do not in any way negate the main incriminating evidence.”

The prosecution case arose from an incident on 17 September 2011, when the accused, in a drunken state, entered the house of his neighbour Samir Paul (PW2) and misbehaved with the womenfolk. When Samir protested, he was stabbed in the abdomen with a knife, causing multiple intestinal perforations and necessitating emergency surgery.

The FIR was lodged by his son Samrat Paul (PW1), who had witnessed the attack. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to three years’ simple imprisonment with fine. In appeal, the accused argued that the conviction was unsafe as it was based solely on “interested witnesses” who were related, that the FIR was delayed, and that the absence of the knife and bloodstained soil made the prosecution case doubtful.

Rejecting the plea that the father-son witnesses were unreliable, the Court held:

“The relationship between PW1 and PW2 may be father and son, but it does not automatically disqualify them as credible witnesses.”

It found that their evidence was natural, consistent, and supported by medical testimony.

On the medical front, the Court noted the doctor’s testimony that the victim sustained a penetrating stab wound with multiple perforations requiring surgery:

“The evidence of the eyewitnesses namely PW1 and PW2 supported by medical reports establishes the case and there is no material inconsistency… on the contrary it corroborates each other.”

The Court dismissed defence arguments about contradictions, stating: “Minor contradictions on some details are quite natural and bound to occur… picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main incriminating evidence.”

It also emphasized that non-recovery of the weapon was not fatal, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nisar Khan v. State of Uttaranchal.

The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the trial court’s assessment:

“Since the testimony of father and son being the eye witnesses is reliable… and since an injury by a sharp cutting instrument like knife on the abdomen, endangering life amounts to grievous hurt, I find no impropriety or perversity in the impugned judgment.”

The appellant was directed to surrender within 30 days to serve the remainder of his sentence.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling underscores that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship if their account is trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence. By holding that “picayune variations do not negate the main incriminating evidence”, the Court reinforced the principle that minor inconsistencies, delay in FIR, or non-recovery of weapon cannot overshadow clear and consistent eyewitness testimony in cases of grievous assault.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025