Credibility of related witnesses upheld where testimony is cogent, with no automatic rejection for minor unexplained injuries.

Related or interested witnesses are not disqualified merely because of their relationship to the deceased; their evidence may be accepted if it is cogent, credible and trustworthy. The absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where natural eyewitnesses are available and the occurrence is otherwise satisfactorily proved. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused does not automatically undermine the prosecution case; its significance depends on whether the injuries are minor or superficial and whether the prosecution evidence remains clear and consistent. The rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no general application in India, and the Court may separate reliable evidence from embellishment. On these principles, the prosecution case was treated as sufficient to sustain conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the accused was sustainable on the testimony of related witnesses, despite the absence of independent witnesses, non-explanation of injuries on the accused, and the acquittal of some co-accused.

Analysis: Relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased, by itself, does not render their evidence unreliable. Their testimony must be tested for cogency and credibility, and the Court may act on it if it is trustworthy. The principle that a witness is partisan or interested does not require mechanical rejection of the evidence. Likewise, the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no general application in India, and the Court may separate the truth from embellishment and accept the reliable part of the evidence. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused is not an automatic ground to reject the prosecution case; its effect depends on whether the injuries are minor or superficial and whether the prosecution evidence is otherwise clear, consistent, and creditworthy. The absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where the available eyewitnesses are natural witnesses and the occurrence is otherwise satisfactorily proved.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the defence objections were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the prosecution evidence was found sufficient to sustain the convictions despite the objections raised on witness credibility, omissions in the evidence, and injuries on the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Related or interested testimony can be relied upon if it is cogent and credible, and minor omissions, unproved objections, or unexplained superficial injuries do not by themselves displace an otherwise proved prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

---