Can’t forget about evidence simply due to the fact the witness is the victim’s relative, observes High court. Madras high court dismissed a man’s revision petition against his conviction. It dismissed in an accident case.
Madras high court has determined that due to the fact the witnesses are associated with the victim. And associated with the complainant, their proof can not be ignored.
The prosecution case is that a person named Ramar took his daughter Munidurgadevi to Malli Bazaar at Srivilliputhur on April 18, 2009.
When they were ready to cross the road, a van ran over Munidurgadevi killing her at the spot. petitioner Balamurugan drove the van. Malli police registered a case in opposition to Balamurugan. Srivilliputhur JM II court in 2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to 12 months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 3, 000.
Balamurugan appealed in opposition to the decision in the Virudhunagar district. The sessions courtroom which dismissed it and maintained the JM’s order. He filed the existing petition, challenging the trial and appellate court order.
Justice K Murali Shankar stated that it’s far from the contention of the petitioner. The 2 witnesses withinside the case are the family of first witness Ramar, father of the deceased. “It’s settled by law that the proof of witnesses is discarded at the fact that he’s a relative or an involved witness. A witness is ‘involved’ only whilst he derives a few benefits from the end result of litigation. They’re called by seeing the accused man or woman punished. The witness is not stated to be an ‘involved’ witness.
It’s not stated simply with the aid of using a distinctive feature of being a relative of the victim, ” determined the judge. The judge stated that if the proof of the relative witnesses is cogent, credible, and trustworthy, the identical may be relied on. In this case, each of the witnesses has deposed. It’s deposed that the accident happened with the aid of reiterating the witness of Ramar.
The judge stated that each one of the witnesses had stated that the van was driven at excessive speed in a rash and negligent way. The appellate court has re-assessed the complete proof. It had given its finding concurring with the JM court. The courtightly preferred the proof and arrived at accurate findings. Hence, the judge disregarded the revision petition.
