Masalti v. State of U.P.

In this 4-Judge Constitution Bench milestone, Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar laid down the definitive parameters for appreciating the testimony of interested, related, and partisan witnesses in criminal trials. The Supreme Court settled that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be equated with that of an accomplice; mere relationship to the victim or factional enmity does not disqualify a witness. However, in cases of communal or village factional rioting involving large mobs, human memory can falter or embellish; therefore, the Court adopted a prudent judicial rule: conviction of an individual member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC should generally be sustained only where their overt role or presence is corroborated by at least two or more credible witnesses.

• Interested Witness vs Incompetent Witness: Held that interested or related witnesses are natural witnesses and cannot be mechanically rejected.
• Mechanical Discard Rejected: Enmity is a double-edged sword; while it may motivate false implication, it also provides motive for the crime and ensures sharp observation.
• Rule of Prudence in Mass Rioting: Where 30-40 persons are arrayed as an unlawful assembly, prudent courts require testimony of at least two independent witnesses to convict any single accused.
• Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC: Once common object is established, every member of the assembly who shares that object is equally guilty of murder.
• No Mechanical Tallying: Clarified that the two-witness rule of prudence is not a statutory command but a judicial safeguard against over-implication.

In village Purwa, Uttar Pradesh, deep-seated factional rivalry existed between two groups: one led by Gayadin and the other by Laxmi Prasad.

On 22 January 1960, a heavily armed mob of over 35 accused persons belonging to the Masalti-Gayadin faction attacked Laxmi Prasad's house with guns, axes, and spears, resulting in five deaths.

The prosecution examined 10 eyewitnesses, all of whom were related to the deceased or belonged to the rival faction.

The Sessions Judge convicted 35 accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, awarding death sentences to 10 and life imprisonment to the rest. The High Court of Allahabad confirmed the convictions.

In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was argued that where all witnesses are partisan and deeply hostile, no conviction can be based on their testimony without independent corroboration, and that the High Court erred in mechanically upholding guilt.

There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to deal with evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, the court has to scrutinize the evidence carefully. But it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested must be rejected on that ground alone. Often enough, where murders are committed as a result of factional feuds, the only witnesses available are persons who belong to one faction or the other. If the evidence of all such witnesses were to be rejected on the ground that they are partisan, it would mean that no conviction could ever be secured in factional crimes. The fact that witnesses are interested or partisan does not make their evidence inadmissible or incompetent. It only puts the court on its guard to examine their evidence with more than ordinary care and caution. Where a crowd of assailants is large, consisting of 30 or 40 persons, and the witnesses are partisan, it is reasonable to adopt a test of prudence to avoid the danger of innocent persons being implicated. In such cases, if the court finds that an accused person is named by two, three, or more witnesses who give consistent accounts of his presence and participation, the court would be fully justified in acting on that evidence and convicting him.

• Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 12 SCC 155: Applied Masalti to uphold conviction where related witnesses were natural witnesses to the murder.
• Raju alias Balachandran v. State of T.N. (2012) 12 SCC 701: Extensively analyzed Masalti's definition of 'interested witness' versus 'related witness'.
• Mani v. State of T.N. (2020) 15 SCC 493: Followed the Masalti two-witness rule of prudence in a communal riot trial involving 24 accused.
• Parshuram v. State of M.P. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1416: Reaffirmed that relationship is not a ground to discredit an injured eyewitness whose presence is natural.