The Supreme Court has reiterated that a witness’s testimony cannot be rejected solely because of their familial relationship with the deceased, observing that being “interested” and being “truthful” are distinct legal concepts. The Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a murder convict, affirming the findings of both the Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2018: Nittu @ Bittu @ Bintu vs. State of Haryana. The appellant had challenged the High Court’s judgment dated 13 March 2014 upholding his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurmeet Kaur.
Background
The case originated from an FIR dated 30 August 2008. The appellant faced trial for allegedly murdering Gurmeet Kaur. While the Trial Court, by its judgment dated 14 October 2009, acquitted some co-accused, it convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2014, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Upon examining the records, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. Addressing the issue of delay in filing the FIR, the Court held:
“Delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR, in our considered view, cannot be said to be fatal rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful in any manner.”
Regarding the testimony of Sukhwinder Singh (PW-4), who is the son of the deceased and an eyewitness to the crime, the Court clarified:
“No doubt he is the son of the deceased but then that itself, cannot be a ground for rejecting his testimony. Interested and truthful witness are two separate things. A relative may be interested in the eventual success of prosecution but still can be truthful.”
The Court found the testimony of PW-4 to be credible and reliable, noting that there was no evidence to impeach his credibility. The witness had clearly stated that the appellant inflicted head injuries on the deceased using a sharp-edged weapon (kulhari), which was later recovered by the police during investigation.
The Court also noted the presence of another prosecution witness — the husband of the deceased (PW-3) — who had lodged the complaint and supported the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
Rejecting the appeal, the Bench held:
“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court.”
However, the Court clarified that the appellant would be at liberty to seek remission, considering the long period of incarceration:
“We are sure that as and when the appellant would be entitled for the benefits thereunder, the same shall be accorded without any delay.”
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Nittu @ Bittu @ Bintu vs. State of Haryana
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2018
