An eyewitness is more reliable than motive: HC

The Bombay High Court has observed that if there is no apparent motive but the evidence of eye witness is reliable, then an accused can be convicted.

This observation was made by a division bench presided over Justice Vijaya Tahilramani and Justice Anant Badar while hearing an appeal of a man who was convicted for killing his cousin.

The bench was approached by Bandu Phadvale challenging the judgment of a trial court that sentenced him for lifetime rigorous imprisonment in March 2011.

According to the prosecution’s case, Phadvale killed his cousin on the day of Holi in March 2010, by an axe.

The counsel appearing for Phadvale had raised questions on the prosecution’s case by terming the deceased’s wife’s testimony as an ‘interested’ witness. The defence had also doubted the prosecution by pointing out that the deceased’s son, who was along with him on the spot of incident, was not examined.

While dismissing the appeal, the bench observed, “The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence, but motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye witness is available.”

“This is so because, even if there is no apparent motive but evidence of eye witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction. And similarly, if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a crime, but the evidence of witnesses is not convincing then he cannot be convicted,” the bench observed.

Referring to the submission that the deceased’s son was not examined, the bench said that evidence given by a single ‘trustworthy’ witness would be enough to convict an accused person.