15 Avr What Is Interested Witness in Legal Terms
In the case of Sadayappan @ Ganesan v. As such, the defence had put forward an argument that the testimony of the witnesses concerned who are relatives of the deceased should not have been used by the court of first instance. Sadyappan was found guilty by the Court of First Instance (which was later upheld by the Supreme Court) for the murder of his neighbor Selvam @ Thangaraj. Nineteenth-century developments in Britain paved the way for interested witnesses to testify in a trial. Soon, however, the question of the credibility of such testimonies arose. Thus, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the witness` « interest » was sufficient to discredit the veracity of the testimony. Other appellate courts have maintained the same position on newly developed jurisprudence in the UNITED Kingdom as the New York Court of Appeals.  A related witness has some sort of relationship with the victim, and an interested witness postulates that someone has a vested interest and benefits from the outcome of the dispute. Therefore, it is essential that the courts examine the credibility of these witnesses in order to exclude any possibility of presenting corrupt evidence in court.
This essay attempts to analyze the probative value of the testimony of related and interested witnesses. « .. that a witness, although not charged, may have such an interest in the issue at issue that his credibility is compromised. » In Prahalad Patel v. Member`s Statement The Supreme Court has ruled that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discredited on the grounds that they are related to the deceased.  In addition, in Balraje v. In the state of Maharashtra, it has been repeated that if eyewitnesses are allegedly interested and have hostile intentions for the accused, it is imperative that the court take a pragmatic approach while reviewing their testimony for its credibility.  « A witness cannot be said to be a `self-serving` witness simply because he or she is a relative of the victim. » Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to note that the credibility of a related witness does not depend on the relationship with the complainant or deceased, provided that the veracity of the evidence can be established with caution and care, as is the case in Waman and others against the State of Maharashtra. Character witnesses provide facts and assessments that deal with the nature of an accused. These are usually family members or people who know the accused. In criminal trials, character witnesses are important in determining an accused`s behavioural history.
Character witness testimony is particularly valuable when the morality or honesty of the accused is questioned, which is common in cases of robbery, white-collar crime and fraud. 1. Ashok Kini, witness, can only be qualified as « interested » if he benefits from seeing an accused punished: SC- 2019, Live Law, (February 15, 2020), www.livelaw.in/news-updates/when-can-a-witness-be-called-interested-144600?fbclid=IwAR1Xpb07oJcy7vLEIzKwj9ockARIeCMmyrgZWVEGRxxCDdAyDRtPcUSfeog. In court proceedings, witnesses are key elements of a case and can help prove the innocence or guilt of an accused. In criminal and civil cases, witnesses are often summoned to court by summons of the defense lawyer or prosecutor to testify. In criminal cases, there are three types of witnesses who are called as witnesses in a trial. These include eyewitnesses, experts and character witnesses. There are three types of witnesses who can testify in court to defend themselves or prosecute in a criminal case. Witnesses can provide important evidence, specialized knowledge and personality assessments of an accused. It is important to note that the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 does not define testimony.  In addition, Black`s Law Dictionary defines a witness as « someone who sees, knows or vouches for something, or someone who testifies under oath or confirmation in person, or by oral or written testimony, or by affidavit. »  A related witness is a witness who has a relationship with the victim.
 A woman testifying about her husband`s death would be an example of the testimony of a related witness. However, it is of the utmost importance to note that « a related witness cannot be equated with an interested witness, » according to the views expressed by the Supreme Court in the infamous Rajasthan State v. Kalki case, which then invited the courts to discussion and deliberation.  4. Can the testimony of a related witness be discredited if it happens to be also a natural witness because it is partisan evidence? His credibility cannot be questioned simply because he was an interested witness. Witness statements should be considered with caution. In addition, an interested witness who is a relative of the victim would be the person who wants to ensure that justice is done to the victim.  iii. If the witnesses agree in their testimony.  In Hull v. Littanuer, however, the court concluded that a witness`s testimony denied the conclusiveness of the testimony if it was not refuted by other evidence and other legitimate conclusions. Therefore, an exception to the general rule was created in this case by postulating that the conclusiveness of the evidence of the witnesses concerned should not be denied, unless the courts find it unbelievable as follows. This analytical article discusses the examination of the right to admissibility of the testimony of a related and interested witness in India, as well as comparative jurisdiction over British law over the conclusiveness of statements provided by an interested witness.
The reason for such a ground for falsely incriminating the defendant is based on the fact that the witness has some direct interest in the outcome of the dispute, as postulated in Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat.  The witness can only be characterized as « interested » if he or she derives some benefit from the outcome of a legal dispute in the order in council in a civil case or if he or she finds that an accused is being punished, the Supreme Court concluded when it rejected a defensive application in a criminal appeal. In the case of Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State, the defense had put forward an argument that the testimonies of the interested parties. 2. If the testimony of a related and interested witness must be mechanically rejected (ref. Raju aka Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 983)? In the words of the respected philosopher Bentham, « witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice, » emphasizing the importance of witnesses in a criminal trial.  Therefore, of course, the question arises of the credibility of related and interested witnesses, who have a direct interest in the outcome of a dispute or in the achievement by the defendant of the objectives of justice on the basis of animus reasons or for various reasons.  4.
Shivani Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth, Appreciation of The Evidence of An Inimical Witness – Raju alias Balachandran v/s Tamil Nadu, Legal Services India, (15 February 2020), www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-611-appreciation-of-the-evidence-of-an-inimical-witness-raju-alias-balachandran-v-s-tamil-nadu.html. In addition, Elwood v. Western Union Telegraph asserts that the interest of witnesses in the subject matter of the case is sufficient for the court to reject the credibility of the evidence presented by such a witness. Furthermore, the fact that related witnesses, who are also natural witnesses to an incident, would not prove that their testimony before the court is inadmissible, in particular because they are also natural witnesses, would lead to a breach of justice if rejected.  2. Roman legal principle, which states that a witness who intentionally falsifies a case is not credible in any matter, (February 15, 2020), legal definition at USLegal, definitions.uslegal.com/f/falsus-in-uno-falsus-in-omnibus/. . .