Meeta Ram v. State Of Punjab
!"#$%$
&'
!( )* *!"+ %$%$
'&&, $$$-- ..&"'
/
1'&'
!(0"2&3 $$$
-!"
"' + 5$1 1167 5$1 $1$176
! "
$1$1769$
$% &' $&(&
*
+
"
")
)
"
,&$
-
) ,&&&.
)
" -
)
/
)
(0, - - (0 &' $&&1
2+
3 "
+
4
2 * 5
2"
2
2+
2"
2+
67 40 67 4(
3 " "
67 402
8
2
8 " ,% ) )
) !
" 1& "
8
" ) "+
('&&&.
9
:
8 (%&&&.
,&&&.
6
"
)
" &' &&&; && (1 &' $&&1
2
/
" *
" (& ,& + "
4
" ($ (%
+
:& *''& & *''&8
<
" *
" )
"
" * )
)
4
"
)
"
2+
94.0:
") ) ) 6 "
")
< ".
"
8
"
) 8 +
" "
7
/ 67 4=
/
")
.
7
67 406
.
>
< - 8 94.=:
(%
" 2
.
67
3 67 ) 7 "
;
5
3")
$& &' $&&1
67 40!
< $, &' $&&1
.
+
5)
(0, - -
7 ) "
* / )
-
7 &;
&,
)
,(, - -
+
" )
)
"
2+
(1(0 &' $&&1 ($ &&
$& + )
8
"
-
.
") " " )
)
<
" 3
) 2 94.%:
*
94.1:
.
7 4.1 * $&
"
67 4;
> #
9 :
) 7
) + 9 :
4.% 2 4.1 *
4.% 2 4.1 * )
+ 9 :
) )
) "
"
4.% 2 4.1 * :
+ " ) )
" ) "
)
4.= >
(%
? ( 1
" +
)
"
" )
"
)
".
" )
") ) " "
) " 4
! "
"
"
3
) 4.% 2 4.1 * )
+ 9 :
) 7 "
)
6 "
) " " "
8
"
2
= " .7 )
+
"
. )
"
/ "
" " ) "
) )
+
.
)
) -/ )
)
/ )
/ )
+ ) ")
" )
) ) ")
)
")
7
3
4.% 2 4.1 * "
)
)
"
"
8@"
-
!
" "
.
> "11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of U.P., 2011 (5) R.C. R. (Criminal) 780: 2011 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 305 : AIR 2011 SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131: 2012 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 227: AIR 2013 SC 308).
12.
In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390, this Court held:
5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased". For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant
% case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
(Emphasis added) (See also: Chakali Maddilety & Ors. v. State of A. P., AIR 2011 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1096: AIR 2010 SC 3473)."
" 4.% 2 4.1 *
)
)
+ )
)
7
")
") )
"
) A 4.% 2 4.1 * "
"
- ) " 4.% 2 4.1 *
"" 3
+ " -
"
)
"
-/ )
" )
- " 3
) ) "
"
" " " " -
"
)
)
) .B.
+ )
"" "
8
)
") "
) "
# ".
"
7 4.= >
" 2
.
7 ")
) /
"
"
.
8 .7
" )
" )
..
+ ) /
"
)
/
/
)
67
67 )
7 4.'
2
3
"
6) 2
)
) (& && &= && (1(0 &' $&&1 )
"
) 6 4.0
2+
)
" )
" ) .7
+ )
" " )
#
"
$% &' $&(&
*
+
"
)
" )
".
*
+
"
+ )
"
) ) -
) ) )
7 )
# - "+ 1167 $1$176
%$%$
+
+ C6
?< " C6
?<