Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 304 (Part II) and 324 – Prosecution u/ss. 302 and 324 – Against four accused – For causing death of one person and for causing injuries to two – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused u/ss. 302 & 324, while acquitting the other accused – High Court, in appeal of appellant-accused modified conviction u/s. 302 to one u/s. 304 (Part II) on the ground that the case fell under Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC – Remaining judgment of trial Court was upheld – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The evidence against the appellant-accused is consistent with the depositions in Court being in line with the complaint and statements made before the police – The appellant-accused has not been able to point out any infirmity in the findings of High Court – Impugned order is upheld. Criminal Trial:
Rule of parity – Convicted accused seeking parity with acquitted co-accused – Held: There is no such principle of law that requires automatic acquittal of an accused because of the acquittal of the co-accused.
Evidence:
Related witness – Evidentiary value – Held: The testimony of a related or interested witness can be taken into consideration with the additional burden on the Court to carefully scrutinize such evidence.
Maxims:
‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ – Nature and applicability of. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The testimony of a related or an interested witness can be taken into consideration, with the additional burden on the Court in such cases to carefully scrutinize such evidence. As such, the mere plea that the testimonies of the witnesses in the case should be disregarded because they were related, without bringing to the attention of the Court any reason to disbelieve the same, cannot be countenanced. [Para 7][1136-CD] Sudhakar v. State (2018) 5 SCC 435 : [2018] 4 SCR
612 – relied on.
2. There is no such principle of law, that requires automatic acquittal of an accused because of the acquittal of the co-accused. The nature and quality of evidence against the appellant-accused was distinct from that which was adduced against his co- accused. The Trial Court noted that the other co-accused were the aunt (accused No. 2), mother (accused No. 3) and grandfather (accused No. 4) of the present appellant. The Court noted that accused No. 4 was 70 years old, and could not even stand straight, let alone presumed to have caused any injury to one of the witnesses. Further, with respect to the actions attributed to accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Trial Court held that they appear to be exaggerations and an after thought, as they were not even included in the complaint. The Court ultimately held that apart from the fact that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were present at the scene of the occurrence, there was no concrete evidence in the depositions of the eyewitnesses to indicate that they caused injuries to the witnesses. When it comes to the appellant, the evidence against him is consistent, with the depositions in Court being in line with the complaint and statements made before the police. The appellant is the main accused, who is stated to have attacked the complainant and caused him injuries as well as hit the deceased on her head with an iron rod, resulting in her death. The allegations against the appellant are in line with the chargesheet, the wound certificate regarding the complainant and the post mortem report of the deceased. [Paras 8, 9 and 10][1137-A-E] Yanob Sheikh v. State of West Bengal (2013) 6 SCC
428 : [2012] 13 SCR 1150 – relied on.
3. It cannot be accepted that once the witnesses had been disbelieved with respect to the co-accused, their testimonies with respect to the present accused must also be discarded. The Indian Courts have always been reluctant to apply the legal maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”. This maxim has not come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". The Trial Court has given specific reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses with respect to the co-accused, and extending the benefit of doubt to them, while convicting the appellant on the strength of the evidence against him. There is no infirmity in the approach of the Trial Court. [Paras 11-12][1137-F; 1138-B-C; E-G]
Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC
366 : [1957] SCR 657; Rohtas v. State of Haryana (2019) 10 SCC 554 – relied on.
4. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has taken into account the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, and has considered the entire evidence, in order to come to the finding that there was a free fight as the appellant also sustained injuries and had even attempted to make a complaint. On the basis of the above, the High Court modified the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the findings of the High Court. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. [Paras 13-14][1138-G-H; 1139-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.