The document discusses different categories of witnesses and how their evidence should be evaluated. It identifies four types of witnesses: 1) a third party disinterested witness like a bystander, 2) a third party interested witness like a trap witness, 3) a related interested witness like family of the victim who has interest in the accused being punished, and 4) a related witness who also has enmity against the accused. The evidence of a related interested witness with enmity against the accused should be examined with greater care and caution than a disinterested witness. However, merely being related to the victim does not mean a witness' evidence can be discarded - if the evidence is consistent and true, their relationship does not affect credibility.
The document discusses different categories of witnesses and how their evidence should be evaluated. It identifies four types of witnesses: 1) a third party disinterested witness like a bystander, 2) a third party interested witness like a trap witness, 3) a related interested witness like family of the victim who has interest in the accused being punished, and 4) a related witness who also has enmity against the accused. The evidence of a related interested witness with enmity against the accused should be examined with greater care and caution than a disinterested witness. However, merely being related to the victim does not mean a witness' evidence can be discarded - if the evidence is consistent and true, their relationship does not affect credibility.
The document discusses different categories of witnesses and how their evidence should be evaluated. It identifies four types of witnesses: 1) a third party disinterested witness like a bystander, 2) a third party interested witness like a trap witness, 3) a related interested witness like family of the victim who has interest in the accused being punished, and 4) a related witness who also has enmity against the accused. The evidence of a related interested witness with enmity against the accused should be examined with greater care and caution than a disinterested witness. However, merely being related to the victim does not mean a witness' evidence can be discarded - if the evidence is consistent and true, their relationship does not affect credibility.
The document discusses different categories of witnesses and how their evidence should be evaluated. It identifies four types of witnesses: 1) a third party disinterested witness like a bystander, 2) a third party interested witness like a trap witness, 3) a related interested witness like family of the victim who has interest in the accused being punished, and 4) a related witness who also has enmity against the accused. The evidence of a related interested witness with enmity against the accused should be examined with greater care and caution than a disinterested witness. However, merely being related to the victim does not mean a witness' evidence can be discarded - if the evidence is consistent and true, their relationship does not affect credibility.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
INTERESTED WITNESS
RAJU ALIAS BALACHANDRAN AND OTHERS VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU (AIR
2013 SC 983) Para 33:- “For the time being, we are concerned with four categories of witnesses – a third party disinterested and unrelated witness (such as a by-stander or passerby); a third party interested witness (such as a trap witness); a related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife or brother of the victim) having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused”. But more than the categorization of a witness, the issue really is one of appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A court should examine the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness. That is all that is expected and required”
WAMAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2011) 7 SCC 295
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinise their evidence meticulously with a little care.”