Credibility of a Related Witness, Interested Witness and a Hostile

Witness

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Under section 118-134 of The Indian Evidence Act,1872 defines who can testify as a
witness, how they can testify, what remarks would be deemed testimony and so on.
 A credible witness is capable of giving testimony and worthy of belief.
 a set of criteria for determining a witness's credibility was developed in the case of
Gangadhar Behera and others vs. State of Orissa.
 Every related witness is not an interested witness.

INTRODUCTION
Witnesses are critical to the administration of justice which is based on the principles of truth
and impartiality. Because the testimony is given under oath, its conclusiveness and veracity
are in the witness's favor. As a result, from the start of a criminal trial, witnesses play a
critical role in the administration of justice. A witness is someone who has directly witnessed
an occurrence. It might be a robbery, an accident or anything else. The Indian Evidence Act
of 1872 under sections 118–134 addresses who can testify as a witness, how they can testify,
what remarks would be deemed testimony and so on. A witness who must testify in front of
the Court must at the very least be able to comprehend the questions asked to him and
respond to them rationally. The capacity of a witness is discussed under sections 118, 121
and 133 of the Act. A credible witness is capable of giving testimony and worthy of belief.
However, in the case of Gangadhar Behera and others vs. State of Orissa, a set of criteria for
determining a witness's credibility was developed, which is as follows:
i. Witnesses' access to correct information.
ii. Witnesses' motive behind hiding the truth, if any.
iii. Whether witnesses agree in their testimony.

CREDIBILITY OF AN INTERESTED WITNESS

An interested witness is someone who has a direct interest in the outcome of the case and
expects to benefit from it.
 In Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh V. State of Gujrat: The phrase 'interested' implies that
the witness has a direct interest in seeing the accused condemned for some other
reason. It is well known that the testimony of interested witnesses is very
untrustworthy and that some of it cannot be trusted without more proof. A natural
witness is frequently a close relative. He is not regarded an interested witness because
he has no personal interest or financial advantage in doing so.
 In State of Haryana V. Shakuntala: The Hon'ble Court defined a "interested" witness
as someone who has a direct or indirect interest in the accused who has been
 convicted due to animus or any other oblique reason. It is an undisputed truth that an
interested witness' evidence is untrustworthy and requires verification before it can be
accepted. Furthermore, it is widely established that interested witnesses want the
accused to be convicted, therefore judicial care is required when considering such
testimony as stated in State of Haryana vs. Shakuntala. It is a well-established
principle that an interested witness' testimony cannot be dismissed on the basis that it
is political evidence. The courts on the other hand, must exercise caution when
analysing evidence that needs substantial confirmation. The acceptance of evidence is
based on two factors: first, the court's scrutiny and second, prudence while assessing
such evidences as suggested in Mano Dutt and Anr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
State of Haryana v. Shakuntala. It is a well-established principle that an interested
witness' testimony cannot be dismissed on the basis that it is political evidence.
The witness's interest does not necessitate an outright rejection of the evidence; rather, it
necessitates a closer examination. Furthermore, the Supreme Court answered the question of
the reliability and credibility of an interested witness' testimony in Joginder Singh vs. State
holding that mere relationship cannot be used to discredit an interested witness' statements if
they are supported by sufficient evidence as was reiterated in State of Bihar vs. Shaukat Mian
as follows: Its credibility cannot be questioned just because he was a witness with a vested
interest. The evidence of an interested witness must be carefully scrutinised. Furthermore, an
interested witness, who is a relative of the victim is someone who is concerned about the
victim's justice.

CREDIBILITY OF A RELATED WITNESS

As ruled in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, the common presumption is that a connected
witness would not falsely testify against an innocent person because they would desire to see
the genuine criminals punished.
However, the veracity of such witnesses' evidence should be scrutinised with caution. As
stated in Raju alias Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu and reaffirmed in A. Alagupandian
vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the evidence of a related witness cannot be invalidated automatically
since the witness's connection cannot be used to assess the credibility of the testimony. The
Supreme Court ruled in Balraje vs. State of Maharashtra that there is no reason to dismiss the
witnesses' version if after thorough study and review of their evidence it appears to be clear,
coherent, and believable.
As a result, the truthfulness of the declaration is taken into consideration by the law. A related
witness' credibility is unaffected by their relationship with either side and the court should
proceed with caution when determining the admissibility of its testimony, depending only on
the facts.
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act states: No person who is or has been married, shall be
competent to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to
whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such
communication, unless the person who made it or his representative-in-interest consents,
except in suit between married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the
other.
 In Bishan Das V. Crown: The mere fact that testimony submitted by a wife against
her husband was permitted in the Court of Session without objection notwithstanding
the fact that it was taken by or on behalf of the husband did not remove the
impediment established by Section 122 IEA. The words "related" and "interested" are
not interchangeable. A witness's mere relationship with him or her would not be
enough to exclude it. An interested witness cannot be a close relative who is a natural
witness to the circumstances of the case.
 In Bhagwan Swarup V. State of U.P and State of U.P. V. Paras Nath Singh and Swarn
Singh V. State of Punjab: The fact that the witnesses are connected to one another is
not a reason to ignore their testimony, according to the court. Relatives should have
no vested motive in falsely accusing the accused or shielding the true perpetrator.
There is no regulation that the testimony of the deceased's relatives must be
substantiated in order to secure the offender's conviction. The facts and circumstances
of each case are unique.
 In Raja Gounder V. State of Tamil Nadu: The Hon'ble court stated that in the murder
case, where there were no independent witnesses, the 302 IPC read with section 3 IEA
applied. Because the disagreement was between brothers over a piece of property, the
conviction on the basis of a connected witness was upheld. The family was embroiled
in a quarrel. There were no impartial witnesses available. The incident was observed
by the deceased's wife, and her testimony is believable since she would be the last
person to implicate appellants, who are her in-laws.

EVERY RELATED WITNESS IS NOT AN INTERESTED WITNESS

Every witness who is linked to the deceased cannot be deemed to be a biased witness who
would fraudulently testify in order to convict the accused. The statements of all relevant
witnesses cannot be dismissed by the courts as a rule. Close relatives' testimony cannot be
ruled out just because they are interested witnesses. The court has an obligation to thoroughly
examine such witnesses' testimony, and if there is any doubt about their reliability, the court
may dismiss their testimony. A close relative would normally be the last person to screen the
true perpetrator and falsely accuse an innocent person. As a result, the mere fact of a
relationship cannot be used to dismiss a witness' testimony. The fact that the witness is
connected to the dead or did not describe the occurrence in the same language or in a natural
manner, in the view of the court, has no bearing on the witness' credibility.

CREDIBILITY OF HOSTILE WITNESS

When a party summons in a witness to testify in its own favour, the witness instead testifies
against the party who called him. This is a common occurrence in circumstances when
witnesses refuse to offer answers in favour of the party calling them as a witness. The witness
must be declared hostile by the court. The side calling the witness does not have the option of
doing so. The witness's negative reference to the person who calls him aids the court in
upholding or rejecting the witness's statement if it is critical to the case and the trial.
Citizens lose faith in the judicial system for resolving their disputes in court of law or are
rendered helpless as a result of this problem, and in order to overcome this problem and
redress or resolve their problems, they will resort to extra-constitutional or extra-legal
measures, which will not only jeopardise democracy but also the rule of law. In every
country's criminal justice system, the function of a witness is crucial, and by testifying under
oath in a case, they aid the court in determining the truth. However, when witnesses become
hostile, which is a typical occurrence in the criminal court system the situation becomes more
complicated.
The prosecution's whole case hinges on a witness's false declaration. As a result, an
increasing number of individuals are losing trust in the system's ability to provide justice to
victims. Because as long as witnesses remain hostile and refuse to provide true depositions in
court, justice will continue to suffer, and people's trust in the efficacy and reliability of the
legal system will be weakened and broken.
Due to numerous court experiences where witnesses have been turned hostile due to threats,
coercion, lures, and monetary considerations at the hands of those in power, their henchmen
and hirelings, political clout and patronage, and innumerable other corrupt practises have
been generously adopted to smother and suffocate truth and realities coming to the surface,
truth and justice have become ultimate casualties.
 In G.S.Bakshi V. State: The inference of hostility is drawn from the witness's answer
and, to some extent, from his demeanour. Thus, a witness can be considered hostile if
he is antagonistic in his attitude toward the party calling him, or if he conceals his true
feelings and does not come out with the truth, and makes statements that are contrary
to what he stated earlier or is expected to prove. When a prosecution witness becomes
hostile by saying anything damaging to the prosecution case, the prosecution has the
right to ask the Court to consider that witness as hostile.
 In R.K.Dey V. State of Orissa: If a witness is telling the truth and his evidence goes
against the interests of the party calling him, he is not always hostile. The main
allegiance of a witness is to the truth, not to the party summoning him. As a result, a
witness's adverse testimony does not make him or her unfriendly. When a statement is
made in favour of the defence owing to animosity with the prosecution, it is referred
to as hostility.
 In Panchanan Gogoi V. Emperor: A hostile witness is one who, by the way he
provides testimony, demonstrates that he is not interested in giving the truth to the
court. This includes the fact that he is prepared to retract earlier assertions.

CONCLUSIONS
The rules in India regulating competency and witness protection are up to date and have been
enacted with everyone in mind. By means of interpretations, the judiciary has enhanced this
statute, increasing its scope and applicability. It makes little difference whether a person can
talk or not; if he can comprehend and respond to inquiries, he can serve as a witness.
Relationship has no bearing on a witness's credibility. When the statements of witnesses who
are known to the affected party are credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible under the law,
and confirmed by additional witnesses or prosecution documentation evidence, the court has
little cause to reject such evidence. Before coming to a conclusion, his statement should be
properly examined and comprehended. It is critical that the court retain a good judicial
attitude toward victim justice, and that when evaluating the reliability of a particular piece of
evidence or testimony, the courts use appropriate caution and solely search for the truth. Any
prejudice or presumptions must be avoided, and the courts should investigate these issues
thoroughly.