Section 3 Evidence Act | Relationship is No Ground to Discard Credible Testimony: Jharkhand High Court

“It is the quality of evidence which is material and not the quantity”— In a seminal ruling, the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Rai, affirmed the conviction of a father-son duo for a brutal spade assault, establishing that the testimony of a relative cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the victim.

“Spade Blow Over Water Dispute”: The Factual Matrix

The case traces back to a violent altercation in 1997 involving a dispute over flowing water in an agricultural field. The prosecution established that the appellants, Lalit Mahto and his son Titu Mahto, assaulted the victim, Bulaki Mahto, with a spade. Lalit Mahto delivered a blow to the victim's head, causing grievous injury, while Titu Mahto struck the victim’s back with the blunt side of the weapon.

While the victim eventually succumbed to his injuries, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charge of Murder (Section 302 IPC). This acquittal stemmed from a significant lapse in the prosecution's case: the failure to examine the Investigating Officer and the Post-Mortem Doctor. Consequently, the prosecution could not legally link the death directly to the injuries inflicted. The accused were instead convicted under Section 325 (Grievous Hurt) and Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC.

“Nephew as Sole Eyewitness”: Credibility Over Relationship

The primary legal contention raised by the defense was the reliability of the sole eyewitness, PW-1 (Nazim Mahto), who was the nephew of the victim. The defense argued that as a close relative, he was an "interested witness," and his testimony should be rejected due to lack of independent corroboration.

Justice Arun Kumar Rai categorically rejected this submission. The Court observed that the witness’s presence at the scene—cultivating land merely 150 yards away—was natural and probable. The Court held that the defense failed to elicit any material during cross-examination to discredit his version of events. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was perfectly corroborated by the medical evidence provided by PW-2 (Dr. Bishwanath Das), who confirmed the specific injuries on the head and back consistent with a spade attack. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a witness cannot be termed "interested" merely due to kinship; their testimony stands if it inspires confidence.

Res Gestae and the “Immediate Aftermath”

Adding depth to the evidentiary analysis, the High Court also relied on the testimony of PW-3 under the doctrine of Res Gestae (Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act). PW-3 testified that immediately after the incident, the injured victim told him that Titu Mahto had struck him. The Court found this spontaneous declaration relevant and admissible, further cementing the prosecution's case despite the absence of other independent eyewitnesses.

“80 Years Old & 25 Years of Trial”: The Mercy of the Court

While upholding the conviction on merits, the High Court exercised significant judicial discretion regarding the sentence. The Court noted that the first appellant, Lalit Mahto, is now over 80 years old, ailing, and has suffered the agony of a criminal trial for over 25 years.

Balancing the demands of justice with humanitarian grounds, the Court modified Lalit Mahto’s sentence under Section 325 IPC to the period already undergone (approximately five months). However, no such leniency was extended to the son, Titu Mahto. The Court upheld his one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC, directing him to surrender within 45 days to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Date of Decision: 28/11/2025