Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court

"In a given case instinct of self-preservation can be the dominant instinct. That being the position, their inaction in not coming to rescue of the deceased cannot be a ground for discarding their evidence," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 01, 2026, has held that the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be doubted merely because they did not intervene to save a victim from armed assailants.

A division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that when witnesses are unarmed and the accused are wielding deadly weapons, the instinct of self-preservation naturally prevails, and such inaction is not a ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence.

The appeal was preferred by Gayasi and Ram Charan against their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant, Ram Charan, passed away, leading to the abatement of the appeal in his regard. The court proceeded to adjudicate the matter concerning the surviving appellant, Gayasi, who was accused of killing the deceased, Ramola, with a farsa on July 11, 1984.

The primary questions before the court were whether the testimony of related witnesses could be discarded in the absence of independent corroboration and whether the inaction of the eye-witnesses during the assault rendered their presence at the scene doubtful. The court was also called upon to determine if the ocular evidence was sufficiently supported by the medical reports.

Distinction Between Related And Interested Witnesses

The Court emphasized that "related" is not equivalent to "interested" in legal parlance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, the bench noted that a witness is "interested" only when they derive some benefit from the litigation or seeing the accused punished. Related witnesses, being natural witnesses to an occurrence, are often the most reliable as they have no interest in protecting the real culprit while falsely implicating an innocent family member.

Court Explains Credibility Of Family Members As Witnesses

The bench observed that it is natural human conduct that a family member of the victim would not falsely implicate an innocent person, particularly for a heinous offence like murder. The court found that the testimony of the informant, Bari Bahu (PW-1), and the uncle of the deceased, Parsadi (PW-3), contained no material contradictions. Their presence at the spot was considered natural as they were engaged in agricultural work nearby.

Self-Preservation As A Dominant Human Instinct

Addressing the appellant's argument that the witnesses did not try to save the deceased, the Court relied on the precedent in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab. The bench noted that how a person reacts in a life-threatening situation cannot be encompassed by any rigid formula. In the present case, the witnesses were sitting under the shade of a banyan tree and were completely unarmed, while the assailants were carrying a farsa and a bhala.

No Expectation For Unarmed Persons To Intervene Against Deadly Weapons

The Court held that an unarmed person could not be expected to intervene to save the life of the deceased in the face of assailants armed with deadly weapons. "Merely on this ground, the reliable testimonies of the eye-witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3, cannot be doubted or discarded," the bench held. The court found that the instinct of self-preservation is a valid justification for their inaction during the violent episode.

Medical Evidence Corroborates Ocular Testimony

The Court further noted that the postmortem report prepared by Dr. Ghanshyam Pandey (PW-2) fully supported the prosecution's version. The injuries found on the deceased, including incised wounds on the neck and a punctured wound in the abdomen, were consistent with the use of a farsa and a bhala as described by the eye-witnesses. The medical evidence thus acted as a strong corroborative factor to the ocular accounts.

Recovery Of Weapons Lends Assurance To Prosecution Case

Regarding the recovery of the murder weapons at the instance of the accused, the Court admitted that while the recovery might not have been in strict compliance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it still lent assurance to the prosecution's story. When viewed in the overall factual matrix and alongside the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3, the recovery of the bloodstained farsa and bhala provided substantial support to the conviction.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life imprisonment sentence for Gayasi. Since the appellant was on bail, the Court cancelled his personal bond and directed him to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, within fifteen days to undergo the remaining sentence.

The judgment reaffirms that the testimony of close relatives, if found credible and natural, stands on the same footing as any other evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that the minor inconsistencies pointed out by the defense were superficial in nature and did not strike at the root of the matter.

Date of Decision: July 01, 2026