- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sone Lal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 24 December 1997 at approximately 3:30 p.m., the accused, Sone Lal, stabbed Ram Khilawan three times with a knife at a hotel in Katni, Madhya Pradesh, causing fatal abdominal and chest injuries. The assault was allegedly witnessed by the deceased’s wife, Yashoda Bai (PW 9), his son Krishna Kumar (PW 6) and others. An FIR (Exh. P-17) was lodged immediately by PW 9, and the victim succumbed to his injuries within an hour at the Government Hospital, Katni. Investigation led to the recovery of a blood-stained knife and clothing from the accused, with forensic analysis confirming the presence of blood matching that of the deceased.
The police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara, Katni convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying mainly on the testimonies of PWs 6 and 9, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, dismissed the appellant’s challenge to that conviction. The present appeal before the Supreme Court questions the sustainability of the conviction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the testimonies of related eyewitnesses (PWs 6 and 9) could be relied upon when other purported independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.
- Whether the medical and forensic evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution’s version to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Contended that reliance on the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 was misplaced because independent witnesses had not corroborated the prosecution story.
- Argued that, being close relatives of the deceased, PWs 6 and 9 were interested witnesses whose testimony required corroboration from neutral sources.
State's Arguments
- Supported the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, emphasizing the immediate lodging of the FIR and consistency of eyewitness accounts with medical evidence.
- Relied on precedent establishing that related witnesses are not inherently unreliable if their evidence is cogent and credible.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 | Relationship alone does not discredit a witness; credibility depends on cogency of testimony. | Used to refute the appellant’s claim that relatives’ evidence should be discarded. |
| Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698 | Affirmed the approach that related witnesses can be reliable. | Cited to reinforce acceptance of PW 6 and PW 9’s testimony. |
| Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 | Classification of witnesses and standards for relying on interested testimony. | Relied on to validate conviction based on related eyewitnesses. |
| Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 | No rule requiring corroboration solely because a witness is related or female. | Quoted to dismiss need for independent corroboration. |
| Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 | Mechanical rejection of partisan evidence leads to injustice; cautious appreciation required. | Guided the Court’s cautious yet accepting stance toward PW 6 and PW 9. |
| State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277; AIR 1973 SC 2407 | Reiterated reliability of related witnesses when testimony is trustworthy. | Referenced in support of upholding conviction. |
| Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76 | Confirmed the same principle regarding related witnesses. | Bolstered the Court’s reasoning. |
| Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 | Similar principle on credibility of related witnesses. | Further support for reliance on PW 6 and PW 9. |
| Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 10 SCC 404 | Emphasised naturalness of family members as eyewitnesses. | Cited to counter argument demanding independent witnesses. |
| Salim Sahab v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 699 | Court should not insist on outsider witnesses when incident occurs in dwelling or family setting. | Used to explain absence of other independent witnesses. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507; AIR 1999 SC 1777 | Prosecution need only examine those who actually witnessed the event. | Reinforced sufficiency of PW 6 and PW 9’s evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of kinship does not render a witness untrustworthy. Citing a consistent line of authority from Dalip Singh onward, the Court held that testimony of related witnesses is admissible and can form the sole basis of conviction if credible.
The Court noted:
- PW 9 lodged the FIR promptly, reducing chances of embellishment.
- Medical evidence confirmed multiple stab injuries consistent with eyewitness accounts.
- The knife recovered on disclosure by the accused bore blood matching that on the deceased’s underwear, as shown by Forensic Science Laboratory report.
- PW 6’s assertion that he too was injured by the accused further linked the appellant to the offence.
Given this corroborative matrix—eyewitness testimony, prompt reporting, medical findings, and forensic linkage—the Court concluded that the conviction was sound. The non-support by other alleged eyewitnesses did not undermine the prosecution case because the core evidence was trustworthy and corroborated.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; conviction and life sentence affirmed.
Immediate Effect: The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC remains intact. Broader Implication: The judgment reiterates that credible testimony from related witnesses, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, suffices for conviction; the absence or hostility of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. No new legal doctrine was created, but existing principles were firmly re-endorsed.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) as was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara, Katni.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial in a nutshell is as follows:
On 24-12-1997 at about 3.30 p.m Ram Khilawan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) resident of Khirhani Gate, Katni went to the hotel of Vijay after coming out of his house for having tea. There some dispute arose between accused, Sone Lal and Ram Khilawan, the deceased. Accused Sone Lal told him taking out a knife from his pocket, “I will finish you today”. Sone Lal gave knife-blow to deceased Ram Khilawan thrice in his stomach with an intention to kill him, whereby the intestine came out of his stomach. The abovesaid incident was witnessed by Sukh Ram Choudhary, Vijay Choudhary, Lala Choudhary and many others. Yashoda Bai w/o Ram Khilawan arrived there hearing the news of altercation. Accused Sone Lal fled away from there towards railway lines after stabbing Ram Khilawan. Yashoda Bai had brought her husband Ram Khilawan to police thana carrying him on rickshaw and had lodged FIR, Exhibit P-17 regarding the incident. PS Katni had sent Ram Khilawan to Government Hospital, Katni vide Ext. P-21 for medical treatment.
4. Dr. Arvind Chauhadda, Assistant Surgeon, had examined him vide his report, Ext. P-20. He had found injuries on his person. Injuries had been inflicted on Ram Khilawan's stomach and chest by sharp-edged weapon. After an hour, Ram Khilawan succumbed to his injuries in Government Hospital, Katni itself. Kamal Ram, wardboy of Government Hospital had given death information of Ram Khilawan, vide Ext. P-15 to PS Katni. PS Katni entered this information as Merg Information, Ext. P-16. ASI B.K Mishra had prepared panchnama of the dead body of Ram Khilawan, Ext. P-13 before the witnesses.
5. Assistant Civil Surgeon, Dr. S.K Sharma (PW 15) according to post-mortem report, Ext. P-25 found several injuries on the person of deceased Ram Khilawan i.e towards left side of chest, towards right side of chest, towards left side of epigastric region and towards left side of stomach. These injuries had been inflicted by sharp-edged weapon. Membranes of stomach, extruding outside, were visible. Right and left pleural cavity were ruptured. Peritoneum cavity of the stomach and duodenum were ruptured. Small intestine was also ruptured. Death of Ram Khilawan was caused due to haemorrhage.
6. In the course of investigation of the case, Shri R.K Gupta, SI seized bloodstained as well as plain earth from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo, Ext. P-19 and prepared site plan, Ext. P-18. Smt Yashoda Bai had deposited bloodstained shirt of her husband, deceased Ram Khilawan with Shri R.K Gupta, SI and the same was seized vide Ext. P-22. Bharat Lal, Constable deposited the sealed packet of Ram Khilawan's underwear at PS Katni receiving it back from Katni Hospital, which was seized by Ext. P-4.
7. On 25-12-1997 accused Sone Lal gave his statement in police custody vide information memo, Ext. P-8 that he has kept knife hidden in the bush adjacent to tamarind tree opposite to pond located opposite the Excise Warehouse and he can give the recovery of the same. Thus, accused Sone Lal handed over the knife taking it out of the bushes and the same was seized vide Ext. P-9. One blue-coloured shirt worn from the person of accused Sone Lal was seized vide seizure memo, Ext. P-16. Seized articles were sent to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. Report of FSL, Sagar, Ext. P-23 was received. As per FSL report, blood was found on the knife, shirt and underwear seized from accused Sone Lal. Blood was also found on the shirt and underwear of deceased Ram Khilawan. Even blood was found in the earth being collected from the site.
8. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was produced by the Police, Katni in the court for hearing the charges against the accused. Since the accused abjured guilt, a trial was held. The trial court primarily relied on the evidence of Krishna Kumar (PW 6), the son of the deceased and Yashoda Bai (PW 9), the wife of the deceased. With reference to the evidence of PW 9 it was held that the same was trustworthy and inspired confidence. Accordingly, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
9. In appeal, the conviction was questioned primarily on the ground that the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 should not have been relied upon. The High Court found that the report of the incident was lodged immediately by PW 9 which was recorded as Ext. P-17. It was pointed out that four others who were named as alleged eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution version. The High Court found that the doctor indicated about the location of the injuries and the medical evidence affirmed the fact that the deceased had been stabbed several times and the blood was found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on the knife seized from the accused. The knife was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
10. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when persons who can be treated as independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 should not have been relied upon.
11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment and order of the courts below.
12. Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version.
13. “5. … Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
6. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 it has been laid down as under: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
‘26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.’
7. The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698 in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 was also relied upon.
8. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh case AIR 1953 SC 364 in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J., it was observed: (AIR p. 366, para 25)
‘25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 (AIR at p. 59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.’
9. Again in Masalti v. State of U.P AIR 1965 SC 202 this Court observed: (AIR pp. 209-10, para 14)
‘14. … But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. … The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.’ ”
To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277, AIR 1973 SC 2407, Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76 and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381. The above position was also highlighted in Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404 and in Salim Sahab v. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699
14. “20. … The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house, the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen anything. If the court has discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question, then there is a justification for making adverse comments against non-examination of such a person as a prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the court should not castigate the prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. The prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also.” (See State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram (1999) 3 SCC 507, AIR 1999 SC 1777,)
15. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 has been analysed in great detail by the trial court and the High Court. The trial court with reference to the evidence of PWs 6 and 9 noted that their version fits in with the medical evidence.
16. It appears from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that blood found on the knife seized from the accused matched with the blood found on the underwear of the deceased. PW 6 in his evidence stated that he had sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. The inevitable conclusion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Alert