Supreme Court Asserts Nuanced Stance on Withheld Witnesses in Criminal Appeals

In a recent judicial pronouncement on December 13, the Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal while highlighting a nuanced perspective on the inference drawn from withholding witnesses during legal proceedings. Contrary to the belief that the absence of eyewitnesses might inherently cast a shadow on the prosecution, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of circumstances before making such determinations.

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal articulated, “It is not axiomatic that in every case where the eyewitnesses are withheld from the court, an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. The totality of the circumstances must be considered for concluding whether an adverse inference could be drawn.”

Delving into the specific scenario of eyewitnesses closely related to the deceased, the Court asserted that their familial connection does not warrant dismissing their testimony outright. Instead, it suggested a closer scrutiny of their evidence. Upon such examination, the Court found their accounts to be of exceptional quality.

Building upon these insights, the Court further stated, “When independent witnesses are available, not affiliated with the opposing parties, and the prosecution neglects to examine them, opting instead for related witnesses, an adverse inference can undoubtedly be drawn against the prosecution. However, when the evidence from eyewitnesses is of sterling quality, quantity becomes secondary; quality takes precedence.”

The case under consideration involved the conviction of three individuals for the killing of the deceased and assault on prosecution witnesses. While the main perpetrator faced charges under Section 302 of the IPC, the other two appellants were convicted under the same provision read with Section 34 of the IPC. Despite the dismissal of their appeals by the Patna High Court, the matter reached the Apex Court.

Addressing a pivotal question about the application of Section 34 to the appellants when the main accused was not charged under the same section, the Court clarified that in cases where the common intention is proven, vicarious liability under Section 34 can be invoked, even without overt acts attributed to specific accused individuals.

Consequently, the Court upheld the sentences for the appellants, directing them to surrender before the Trial Court. It also noted that the appellants may be considered for permanent remission by the State Government in accordance with the applicable remission policy.

The case in focus: MAHESHWARI YADAV vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR, Diary No.- 9126 – 2011.