Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely Due to Relationship; P&H High Court Upholds Murder Conviction and Life Sentence
Case Name: Vijay Kumar @ Neetu v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Citation: CRA-D-969-DB-2016
Bench: Justice Alka Sarin and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their relationship with the deceased. A close relative who is a natural witness to the occurrence does not become an “interested witness” merely on account of such relationship. The Court further reiterated that minor discrepancies or alleged defects in investigation cannot outweigh credible and trustworthy ocular evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Upholding the conviction, the Court affirmed the life sentence imposed upon the accused for the murder of his sister’s mother-in-law.
Summary: The case arose from a gruesome murder that took place on 1 August 2015 at Longowal, District Sangrur. The accused Vijay Kumar alias Neetu was the brother of Komal, who was the daughter-in-law of complainant Tarsem Chand. According to the prosecution, the accused visited Tarsem Chand’s house and demanded ₹2 lakh from him. When Tarsem Chand expressed inability to pay, the accused insisted that he would obtain the money from Pushpa Devi, wife of Tarsem Chand.
The accused then entered the kitchen where Pushpa Devi was preparing tea and repeated the demand. Upon her refusal, he allegedly took out a kirch (a sharp-edged weapon resembling a small kirpan) and inflicted multiple blows upon her abdomen and chest. Pushpa Devi succumbed to the injuries on the spot. When Tarsem Chand attempted to intervene, the accused also attacked him, causing injuries during the ensuing scuffle.
The prosecution’s case rested primarily upon the testimony of Tarsem Chand, who witnessed the assault, and Uggar Sain, the son-in-law of the family, who arrived during the scuffle and assisted in overpowering the accused before he was handed over to the police. A blood-stained kirch was recovered from the spot, along with the accused’s motorcycle and other belongings.
Medical evidence strongly corroborated the prosecution version. The post-mortem examination revealed as many as fifteen injuries on the body of Pushpa Devi, including multiple incised wounds on the abdomen and chest, injuries to the liver, stomach, lungs and internal organs, resulting in extensive haemorrhage. The doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that no independent witness had been examined and that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. It was further contended that discrepancies in the investigation, including issues relating to the recovered motorcycle and other articles, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Reliance was also placed upon alleged defects in investigation to seek acquittal.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that the occurrence took place inside the house and at the relevant time only the accused, Tarsem Chand and Pushpa Devi were present. Therefore, the prosecution could not have produced any independent eyewitness to the actual assault. The Court held that where family members are the only natural witnesses to a crime, their testimony cannot be discarded merely because of their relationship with the victim.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, the Court reiterated that a related witness is not synonymous with an interested witness. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last person to falsely implicate an innocent individual while shielding the real culprit. The true test is whether the testimony is credible, natural and trustworthy.
The Court further held that even if certain lapses or shortcomings existed in the investigation, such defects could not result in acquittal where the substantive evidence on record convincingly established the guilt of the accused. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhanraj Singh @ Shera v. State, the Court observed that defective investigation cannot eclipse reliable ocular testimony and medical evidence.
After examining the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused intentionally inflicted repeated blows with a deadly weapon on vital parts of the body of Pushpa Devi. The nature, number and location of the injuries clearly demonstrated the intention required to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC. The injuries suffered by Tarsem Chand during his attempt to intervene also stood proved through medical evidence, thereby justifying the convictions under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court. The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302, 323 and 324 IPC and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment for murder, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable eyewitness and medical evidence.