Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. The other stand relates to the evidentiary value of statements of PWs 1 and 3 who were claimed to be related to the deceased. c
12. In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a D witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a 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.
13. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364 it has been laid down as under:- "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 F 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 ~ criticism and the mere fact of G relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. 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 H [2007) 4 S.C.R. must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
14. The above decision has since been followed in Gu/i Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974] 3 SCC 698 in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (195_7) SC 614 was also relied upon.
15. 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 's case (supra) 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, 1. C it was observed: "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corrobo~tion. 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 ofRajasthan' AIR (1952) SC 54 at p.59. We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, ifnot in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
16. Again in Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202 this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 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."
17. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, H AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 76. -r– MANOv. STATEOFTAMILNADU [PASAYAT,J.]
18. In S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (2006) SC 2716, it was A observed that 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. B
19. Even if the recovery of the weapons as claimed was after a long period and those were not sent for forensic examination that does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the prosecution version.
20. Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal, which is C accordingly dismissed. S.KS. Appeal dismissed.