STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BALLABH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave arise out of a judgment dated December 19, 1975 of the Allahabad High Court by which the High Court reversed the conviction and sentence of the respondents. for various offences under Ss. 147, 148, 225/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of all the charges.

(2.) The prosecution case is fully detailed in the judgments of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and it is not necessary to cover the same grounds all over again. We would. mention only the broad outlines of the case presented by the prosecution before the trial court. The unfortunate dispute in the instant case which resulted in the death of the deceased appears to have been the last step of a drama long in process as a result of a long standing enmity between the parties for the last twenty five years.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction of the respondents on the ground that all the witnesses examined to prove the occurrence were interested persons and hence no reliance could be placed on their evidence. To begin with, we dare say that this was doubtless an absolutely wrong and perverse approach. There is no law which says that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of interested witnesses should be thrown out at the behest or should not be relied upon for convicting an accused. What the law, requires is that where the witnesses are interested, the court should approach their evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. We might also mention that the evidence of interested witnesses, is not like that of an approver which is presumed to be tainted and requires corroboration but the said evidence is as good as any other evidence. It may also be mentioned that in a faction ridden village, as in the instant case as mentioned by us earlier, it will really be impossible to find independent persons to come forward and give evidence and in a large number of such cases only partisan witnesses would be natural and probable witnesses. This Court in Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1985, made the following observations: