Home | Legal Advice | Case Law | Jaisy @ Jayaseelan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2012) 1 SCC 529

Jaisy @ Jayaseelan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2012) 1 SCC 529

Jaisy @ Jayaseelan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2012) 1 SCC 529

Judgment delivered by Justice (Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai. The appellant, originally accused no. 2, was tried alongside six other accused for various offenses, including Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court acquitted some accused and convicted others. The appellant, along with others, appealed to the Madras High Court, which upheld the convictions. This appeal was filed subsequently to Supreme Court.

An interested witness’s evidence, if found truthful, can be relied upon without corroboration. The law does not mandate treating the testimony of an interested witness on par with that of a tainted witness or an approver, necessitating automatic corroboration. The evidence provided by an interested witness is not inherently flawed. However, as a prudent practice, courts recommend careful scrutiny of such witnesses’ testimony, not as a legal requirement but as a matter of prudence.

Jaisy @ Jayaseelan Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2012) 1 SCC 529

The prosecution’s case alleged a criminal conspiracy leading to an attack on the Chairman of the panchayat on June 9, 2002. The accused trespassed into the office, restrained and attacked the deceased, Ramesh. The prosecution presented 27 witnesses, including Thiru Vinoba (PW-1), the deceased’s brother, and Tmt. Puratchimani (PW-6), the deceased’s younger sister.

While some eyewitnesses turned hostile, the trial court and the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-1 to implicate the appellant. The defense argued that PW-1’s testimony, being that of an interested witness, required corroboration. However, the court, citing legal precedents, held that an interested witness’s evidence, if found truthful, can be relied upon without corroboration.

The defense also contended that the prosecution suppressed a statement from PW-6, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the First Information Report (FIR). The court disagreed, finding no evidence of suppression and affirming the validity of the FIR. The court noted a minor discrepancy in PW-6’s statement timing but considered it inconsequential.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant’s counsel.

Kanoonirai has been advising in legal issues since October 2014. You can consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54