RESEARCH ANALYSIS

“CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT ENSHRINED BY THE SC IN

RAJU ALIAS BALACHANDRAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU”

LAW OF EVIDENCE - 1ST INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

Guided by-
 Prof. Virendra Singh Thakur
 Adv. Swetha Iyengar

Submitted by-
Jaskeerat Singh Johar
th
4 Year B.BA.LL.B (Hons.)
PRN- 15010126330
Roll No. 330
Division – D
 LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT ENSHRINED BY THE SC IN

RAJU ALIAS BALACHANDRAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

ABSTRACT

This article deals with the legal status of an interested witness and a related witness. The author
has examined the view taken by the Supreme Court in its judgment of Raju alias Balachandran
and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu1 and compared it with the precedents which were set by the Apex
Court in this field. The principle point of this article is to bring out in detail the concept which
was enshrined by the Supreme Court in Raju alias Balachandran case, to put forward author’s
opinion that whether the judgment was correct or not and the recent development related to the
said case. Through this article, the author has reached to the conclusion that so far the part of the
judgment that deals with scrutinizing the evidence of a related witness with great care and caution,
is correct but the other part of the judgment where a related witness has been said to be an interested
witness having an interest in ensuring that the accused is punished, is far from being correct.

Keywords: interested, related, witness, enmity, accused.

Introduction: Concept enshrined by the
Supreme Court in Raju alias Balachandran
and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu.2
The two judges’ bench which decided the case
of Raju alias Balachandran after quoting a
proposition laid down by a four judges’ bench
in the case of Darya Singh,3 two three-judges’
benches in the cases of Dalip Singh4 and
Kalki5 and a two judges’ bench in the case of
Waman,6 purported to take a totally different
view to the effect that a “related witness” is an
“interested witness” having an interest in
ensuring that the accused is punished.

1
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
2
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
3
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, (1964) 3 SCR 397.
4
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145.
5
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2 SCC 752.
6
Waman v. State of Maharashtra., (2011) 7 SCC 295.

2|Page
 LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
The Apex Court also observed that there are
four categories of witness which a court has to
deal with:
i. a third party disinterested
unrelated witness (such as a by-
stander or passerby).
ii. a third party interested witness (such
as a trap witness).
iii. a related and therefore an interested
witness (such as the wife of the victim)
having an interest in seeing that the
accused is punished.
iv. a related and therefore an interested
witness (such as the wife or brother of
the victim) having an interest in seeing
the accused punished and also having
some enmity with the accused”. 7
The Hon’ble Court further held that the real
issue is not the categorization of a witness, but
the issue really is one of appreciation of the
evidence of a witness. Therefore, a court
should always examine the evidence of a
related and interested witness having an
interest in seeing the accused punished and
also having some enmity with the accused
with greater care and caution than the
evidence of a third party disinterested and
7 9
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
8
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
unrelated witness. That is all that is expected
and required by the courts at the trial stage.8
and
Author’s Opinion: Whether the judgment
was correctly decided?
The question as to whether a related witness is
also an interested witness, this court took a
completely different view from the precedents
set by the benches of the same court and came
to a conclusion that “a related witness” is an
“interested witness” having an interest in
ensuring that the accused is punished.
But when we look at the previous judgments
which were delivered by the larger bench than
the one in the present case, the story will be
different. A three judges’ bench had
previously held that “related” is not equivalent
to “interested”.9 A witness may be called
“interested” only when he or she derives some
benefit from 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 eyewitness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to be
“interested”. Any close relative or friend, if he
is a genuine eye witness, will be the last
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2
SCC 752.
3|Page
 LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
person to falsely accuse an innocent person,
the inevitable consequence of which will be to
allow the real assailant to escape the clutches
of law. Such an attitude on the part of a close
relation or friend would be most unnatural or
strange, unless the accused can show that the
witness has reason to do so for some specific
reason or the other.10
Merely because any witnesses are related to
the complainant or the deceased, their
evidence cannot be thrown out.11 Once it is
found by the Court, on an analysis of the
evidence of an interested witness that there is
no reason to disbelieve him then the mere fact
that the witness is interested cannot persuade
the court to reject the prosecution case.12
It is well settled that when it comes to the
credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives
of the victim, the court has to scrutinize such
evidence with greater care and caution, but
such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole
ground of their interest in the prosecution.13
The relationship per se does not affect the
credibility of a witness. Merely because a
witness happens to be a relative of the victim
10
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Ors., (1981) 2
SCC 752.
11
Waman v. State of Maharashtra., (2011) 7 SCC
295.
12
State of U P v. Ballabh Das and Ors., AIR 1985 SC
1384.
of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as
an ‘interested witness.’14
The word “Interested” In the general or
popular sense means only, “having an interest
or concern”.15 But in the matter of
appreciation of evidence in criminal cases,
courts, generally speaking, have not gone by
the popular meaning; courts have adopted a
special meaning namely, that a person can be
regarded as an interested witness only if he,
activated by ill feeling towards the accused or
for extraneous reasons, wishes to ensure that
accused is convicted and sent to prison.
“Extraneous reason” can only mean some
reason other than the incident in which his
close relation or friend sustained serious
injuries. Ordinarily, such extraneous reason
can only be ill feeling or strong antipathy
towards the accused. This is what the
Supreme Court has consistently opined for
over sixty years. Therefore the formulation in
Raju alias Balachandran of a “related and
therefore an interested having an interest in
seeing that the accused is punished” is not
correct.
13
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar,
AIR 2008 SC 2436
14
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar,
AIR 2008 SC 2436
15
See Chambers, 20th Century Dictionary, new
edition 2015.
4|Page
 LAW OF EVIDENCE | 1st INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT | SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL PUNE
Recent Development
While referring to the Raju alias Balachandran
case, Delhi High Court in its recent judgment
of State and Ors. v. Sajjan Kumar16 has held
that in evaluating the evidence of an interested
witness, the Court must scrutinize their
evidence carefully so as to ascertain whether
it has the ring of truth. While their testimony
is not to be viewed with suspicion merely
because of their relationship with the victim,
the Court must be satisfied that it is consistent
17
and cogent.
Delhi High Court in its another recent
judgment18 while referring to the Raju alias
Balachandran case has observed that the
evidence of an interested or related witness
should not be looked at with suspicion only
due to their relationship with the deceased.
Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last
16
State and Ors. v. Sajjan Kumar and Ors.
(17.12.2018 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/4633/2018
17
State and Ors. v. Sajjan Kumar and Ors.
(17.12.2018 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/4633/2018
to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate
an innocent person. Their evidence must be
scrutinized carefully to ascertain if it has a
ring of truth. It must also be examined for
contradictions and if found to be reasonable
and consistent, may be relied upon in arriving
at a finding of guilt qua the accused person.19
Conclusion
If we refer to para 34 of the case,20 the Bench
found that PW5, the sole eyewitness in the
case was “someone who has an enmity with
the accused and his evidence needs to be
scrutinized with great care and caution”. This
proposition cannot be taken exception to.
What is taken exception to, is the proposition
that evidence of a “related person” without
previous enmity towards the accused should
be treated at par with a witness shown to have
previous enmity with the accused.
18
Guddu Raj v. State, 2018 VIAD (Delhi) 476.
19
Guddu Raj v. State, 2018 VIAD (Delhi) 476.
20
Raju alias Balachandran and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983.
5|Page