As per case facts, Kumari Geeta reported the murder of her mother, Rajwanti, by her uncle Naresh and Nesha due to a plot dispute. Initial testimonies from Kumari Geeta (PW1) ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 1111
IIIINNNN TTTTHHHHEEEE HHHHIIIIGGGGHHHH CCCCOOOOUUUURRRRTTTT OOOOFFFF PPPPUUUUNNNNJJJJAAAABBBB AAAANNNNDDDD HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA
AAAATTTT CCCCHHHHAAAANNNNDDDDIIIIGGGGAAAARRRRHHHH
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444
RRRReeeesssseeeerrrrvvvveeeedddd oooonnnn::::----22227777....11110000....2222000022225555
PPPPrrrroooonnnnoooouuuunnnncccceeeedddd oooonnnn::::---- 22228888....11110000....2222000022225555
UUUUppppllllooooaaaaddddeeeedddd oooonnnn::::----11119999....00001111....2222000022226666
Naresh and another …Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana …Respondent
CCCCOOOORRRRAAAAMMMM:::: HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMRRRR.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT
HHHHOOOONNNN’’’’BBBBLLLLEEEE MMMMRRRRSSSS.... JJJJUUUUSSSSTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR
Present: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
***
NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT,,,,
JJJJ....
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against
the impugned judgment dated 19.05.2004 and order dated 21.05.2004
passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby, both the appellants
have been convicted for the commission of the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
alongwith default stipulation.
2. The FIR Ex.PA/1 in the present case was registered on
the basis of the statement Ex.PA made by Kumari Geeta, daughter of
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 2222
Ram Mehar resident of Chidana and the same has been reproduced
below:-
“Statement of Kumari Geeta d/o Ram Mehar caste Jat
r/o Chidana at present Gudha Road near Kumari Geeta
Vidya Mandir School Gohana age 14 years.
Stated that I am resident of above address. My father
Ram Mehar had gone to Saudi Arb country. We are
three sister and brothers. I am eldest and both my
brothers are younger to me. I am studying in 7
th
class.
My uncle Ramesh has already expired eight months
ago. After his death my aunt Rajesh had performed
Kareva with my father. My Mausi (aunt) Rajesh @
Babli is living in village Chidana and my mother
Rajwanti was living at Gohana in the house of my Foofa
(uncle) Rattan alongwith us from two years ago because
my Bua (aunt) had expired about 3 years ago. My Bua's
children also used to live with us and son of my Mausi
(aunt) Vikas @ Vickky s/o Ramesh also used to live with
us. My father are three brothers. Naresh is my youngest
uncle who lives at village. Two months ago my uncle
Naresh had made a quarrel with my Mausi Rajesh and
my mother Rajwanti about the partition of the plot and
also given beating to my Mausi. He wants to take
possession of whole the plot. My uncle Naresh was
having a grudge from that time. He came to Gohana at
our house twice or thrice and gave threat to my mother
that no need to put your foot in the plot and if you
demanded any share of the plot you would be killed. My
mother scolded him and asked him not to come here.
Today i.e., 30.05.2002, I along with my younger brother
Satish and uncle's son Vikas @ Vickky were studying
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 3333
and sitting in the verandha of house and my mother was
stitching her suit. At about 5:30 P.M. my uncle Naresh
and Nesha s/o Chander Jat r/o village Chidana both
came inside our house and my uncle Naresh stated that
she should be taught a lesson for demanding share in
the plot and after that Naresh threw my mother sitting
before sewing machine in the varanda. We tried to
rescue her but Naresh also pushed us to backside.
Nesha caught hold of my mother's both hands and my
uncle Naresh inflicted various blows of knife on head,
hands, chest, stomach and feet of my mother
continuously. When we raised alarm of Bachao-Bachao
our uncle also shown knife to us and due to fear we
rushed back. On hearing our noise our relatives Hari
Om s/o Raghbir Singh caste Jat r/o Lath who was
staying at our house since morning came on the spot
from neighbour's house. On seeing him my uncle Naresh
and Nesha ran away towards Meham Road along with
knife. We all ran behind to catch them then we saw a
Maruti car of white colour on the Guddha chowk, in
which a person was sitting on the driver's seat. My
uncle Naresh and Nesha sat in the car and asked
Karambir to run away and all the three rushed towards
the city in that car. On our return at home I found my
mother dead. I sent my brother Vikas to call my Mausi
(aunt) from village Chidana. My Mausi Rajesh reached
at our house and we told her, all the facts. Leaving the
dead body in the custody of her aunt Rajesh and our
brother Vikas, I was going to the police station for
reporting the matter alongwith her relative Hari Om, at
the same time, you met us. I got recorded my statement
heard, which is correct. Action be taken. Sd/- Kumari
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 4444
Geeta, Attested Amar Dass SZ/SHO P.S. City Gohana”.
3. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was
conducted by the police and both the appellants were ordered to be
arrested. The appellant No.1 got recovered a knife, which was blood
stained. After completion of investigation, the challan under Section
302/34 IPC was presented before the Area Magistrate.
4. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC was triable by
the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions Judge, Sonipat. After considering the challan and the
accompanying documents, the trial Court found a prima facie case
under Section 302/34 IPC against both the appellants, to which, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the trial Court.
5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution
examined PW1 Kumari Geeta, who had reiterated the statement
made by her initially to the police and admitted that she had made the
complaint Ex.PA under her signatures. The prosecution further
examined Smt. Rajesh as PW2, who stated that about 04 months ago,
her son Vikas came to her house at village Chidana and told her that
his uncle Naresh and two other persons had killed his mother
Rajwanti by stabbing her in a room. She rushed to their house and
found that Rajwanti was dead in the house and multiple injuries were
present on her body. Vikas also told her that one Karambir had also
accompanied Naresh to commit the crime and third person Nesha was
also with Naresh. In the meantime, the police reached at the spot and
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 5555
took the dead body in possession. The prosecution further examined
PW3 Hari Om, who stated that on 30.05.2002, he had gone to the
house of Rattan Singh at Gohana for money. Kumari Geeta and his
sons were present in his house. Thereafter, he went to the house of
neighbour and was waiting for Rattan Singh. On hearing the noise, he
reached the house of Rattan Singh and found that Naresh was
carrying a knife and had caused injuries to Smt. Rajwanti. Nesha had
caught hold of her hands and he was also with him. Seeing him, they
fled towards Gudda Chowk and boarded the car and went towards
Gohana. Karambir was driving the said car in which both the accused
escaped. He came back to the place of occurrence and found that
Smt. Rajwanti had already succumbed to the injuries. He and Kumari
Geeta informed the police. The police reached at the spot and he
made his statement to the police. The prosecution further examined
Satish aged about 10 years, a child witness. Before recording his
testimony, the trial Court had put two questions to him to ascertain his
capability to understand the questions and the proceedings in the
Court and to give evidence. The Court has found him intelligent
enough to depose as a witness. PW4 Satish stated that at about 05.30
p.m. on 30.05.2002, his uncle Naresh and Nesha came to their house
and both of them were identified in the Court room. Nesha accused
caught hold of his mother and his uncle Naresh gave knife blows to
his mother on her head, abdomen, legs and arms. He and Vikas saw
Naresh causing injuries to his mother while Nesha was holding his
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 6666
mother. His sister Kumari Geeta was also present at the spot, when
the injuries were caused. Hari Om was also reached their house at that
time. Nesha and Naresh fled away after causing injuries. Karambir
was present at Gudda Road with a car and Nesha and Naresh fled
away in that car with Karambir. There was a dispute regarding a plot
of land between them and Naresh etc., and injuries were caused to his
mother due to said dispute. The prosecution further examined PW5
Anil Kumar, ASI, who had recorded the formal FIR Ex.PA/1 and
made his disclosure statement Ex.PA/2 on the same. He also sent
special reports to the Judicial Magistrate and higher police officers.
The testimony of PW6 HC Ranbir Singh was formal in nature.
6. The prosecution further examined PW4 Dr. Karambir,
who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of
Rajwanti wife of Ram Mehar on 31.05.2002 and the relevant extract
of his testimony has been reproduced below:-
“The length of the dead body was 5 feet. The dead body
was moderately built and nourished, wearing white
jumpher (printed), Salwar, grey coloured braizer (vest)
and underwear of dark grey colour, blue chunni. The
mouth was closed and eyes were open. Rigormortis were
present.
On examination the following injuries were noticed:-
1. An incised wound over the middle finger of right hand
size 3 x 1 cm.
2. An incised wound over the left breast size 2 x 1 cm.
3. An incised wound over the left side in front of Axilla
deep upto the lung of size 7 x 4 cm.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 7777
4. An incised wound over the left side behind the
Axilla of size 4 4 x 2 cm.
5. An incised would over the right hypochondrium of size
5 x 2 cm.
6. An incised wound over the abdomen below the
umbilicus of size 7 x 2 cm.
7. Incised wound over the left arm of size 4 x 1 cm and 3
x 1 cm side by side.
8 An incised wound over the scalp of size 4 x 1 cm just
above the behind the ear.
9. An incised wound over the lumber region of size 3 x 1
cm in the middle.
10. An incised wound over the left elbow of size 5 x 4 cm
laterally.
11. An incised wound over the left arm of size 10 x 1 cm.
12. An incised wound over the left fore-arm of size 3 x 1
cm.
13. An incised wound over the right knee joint of size 6 x
3 cms, 2 x 1 cms side by side. On dissection, fracture
patella was present.
14. An incised wound over the right thigh of size 7 x 3
cms.
15. A superficial wound over the right thigh of size 1 x
0.5 cms.
16. An incised wound over the left knee joint two in
number side by side of size 8 x 1 cms and 6 x 1 cms.
17. An incised wound over the left thigh of size 1 x 0.5
cm.
Both the pleura, right lung, pericardium, mouth,
pharynx, abdominal wall, spleen and kidneys were pale
and healthy. The left lung was pale and healthy and
there was an incised wound over the left size of size 4 x 2
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 8888
c.ms. in corresponding to injury No. 3. The heart was
empty. Liver was pale and healthy and there was an
incised wound over the antero-inferior surface of size 3 x
2 c.ms. corresponding to injury No.5. Stomach was
containing semi-digested food. Small intestine was
containing chyle and bile juices. intestine was containing
gases and faecal matters. Urinary bladder was
containing small amount of urine. External genital was
normal in appearance.
In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was
hemorrhage with hypoglycemic shock due to the above
mentioned injuries. All the injuries were antemortem in
nature and sufficient to explain the cause of death in
normal course of life.
I handed over to police (1) a well stitched dead body
after postmortem examination alongwith its belonging,
(2) copy of P.M.R., (3) Police papers numbering 1 to 22
duly signed by me. A parcel bearing eight seals
containing the clothes of the deceased, and (5) sample
seal. The probable time between the injuries and death
was within half an hour and between death and
postmortem examination, it was within 24 hours.
EX.PC is the carbon copy of the postmortem
examination report, which is in my hand and bears my
signatures. Ex. PC/1 is the police request for conducting
postmortem examination. Ex.PC/2 is the inquest report
numbering 1 to 22 which was initialed by me. (At this a
sealed parcel bearing the seals of FSL is opened and a
Chhuri is taken out of it and shown to the witness). All
the injuries except injury No. 13 on the person of the
deceased, can be caused with the Chhuri Ex.P1. (At this
stage, another sealed parcel bearing the seals of FSL is
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 9999
opened and a lady shirt, one Salwar, one braizer, one
under-wear and one chunni are taken out of it and shown
to the witnesses.) Lady shirt Ex.P2, Salwar Ex.P3,
Brazier Ex. P4, Under-wear Ex. P5 and Chunni Ex. P6
are the same clothes which was sealed ty me at the time
of postmortem examination.”
7. The prosecution further examined PW8 Constable Jagbir
Singh, who had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PE with correct
marginal notes. PW9 Jagdish Chander proved on record the
photographs of scene of crime, where the dead body of Rajwanti was
lying in the house. The testimonies of PW10 Jasbir Singh and PW11
Raj Pal ASI were formal in nature. The prosecution examined Rattan
Singh son of Mehar Singh as PW12, who stated that there was a
dispute regarding the ownership of plot of land between Naresh,
appellant and Ram Mehar. This plot was inherited by brothers of his
wife from her father and the dispute arose after the partition of the
properties. Naresh, accused asserted that he was the sole owner of the
plot of land and while Ram Mehar and his wife asserted that Ram
Mehar had also a share in the plot. Rajwanti and Naresh had
altercations with each other in his presence over the share of Ram
Mehar in this plot. They also scuffled and exchanged blows with each
other over the dispute regarding this plot at another time. Again,
regarding this plot, on receiving a telephonic message regarding the
murder of Rajwani, he went to Gohana and reached home. Thereafter,
he had narrated the facts to the police. On 04.06.2002, Naresh and
Nesha were apprehended by the police and on interrogation they
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11110000
confessed their crime. Naresh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PH
and he got recovered a blood stained knife vide recovery memo
Ex.PH/1. Similarly, Nesha also suffered a disclosure statement and
stated that he had caught hold of Rajwanti while Naresh had given
knife blows to her. The testimony of PW13 Satyavir Singh was
formal in nature. The prosecution further examined PW14 SI Amar
Dass, who had initially conducted the investigation in the present
case. He had arrested the accused on 04.06.2002 and made recoveries
in the present case. Similarly, the prosecution examined PW15 Vikas,
who did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared
hostile.
8. After the statements of PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4
Satish, applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were moved by the
accused for recalling both the witnesses for further cross-examination.
When both the witnesses, PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4 Satish
appeared as witnesses, they were declared hostile and did not support
the case of the prosecution. Rather both the witnesses stated that at
the time of incident, they had gone to market to fetch milk and
vegetables. They had not seen Hari Om in their house on that day.
Even, there was no dispute between their mother and uncle Naresh
over the plot. They even disowned the previous statements made by
both the witnesses.
9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire
incriminating evidence was put to both the appellants in the shape of
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11111111
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Naresh accused, stated that
he was innocent and he and his other co-accused had been falsely
involved. PW3 Hari Om was related to Rattan Singh PW12 and they
both were inimical towards him and in collusion with police, they had
falsely involved them in the present case. Similar stand was taken by
Nesha, co-accused.
10. In their defence, the appellants examined DW1 Jai Pal,
who stated on 30.05.2002, he was present in his house and Hari Om
son of Raghbir Singh did not come to his house. His house was
situated near the house of Rattan. The appellants further examined
Ram Mehar son of Ram Sarup as DW2, who stated that Naresh,
co-accused was his real brother. They were living separately from
each other for the last 15 years. At the time of separation of
agricultural land, plot and residential house were also partitioned
peacefully. There was no dispute over a plot, between him and his
brother Naresh. At the time of death of his wife Rajwanti, he was
serving in Saudi Arabia as driver. The plot at Gohana was purchased
by him in his name and he had sent the money from Saudi Arabia for
construction of his house on the plot at Gohana to his wife but she did
not spend the amount on the plot and handed over the said amount to
Rattan, who was his brother-in-law. He had taken that amount only
for two months but did not return the same. His wife demanded
money from Rattan but he refused to return. Rajesh wife of his
younger brother had performed Kareva marriage with him as his
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11112222
brother Ramesh had expired. He used to send expenses of his both
wives and children. His brother Naresh informed him about the death
of his wife Rajwanti and he came to India 13/14 days after that.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that as per the prosecution version, there was a dispute
between appellant No.1 and Ram Mehar, husband of the deceased
over a plot. However, Ram Mehar appeared as DW2 and specifically
deposed that there was no dispute over the plot as agricultural land
and residential house were already partitioned peacefully at the time
of separation. Consequently, there was no motive on the part of the
appellants to commit the crime.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4 Satish have been wrongly relied upon
by the trial Court while recording the judgment of conviction against
the appellants. In fact, PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4 Satish were
recalled for further cross-examination and they clearly stated that
earlier statements were made under the pressure of PW2 Smt. Rajesh
(Massi), PW12 Rattan Singh (Fufa) as well as the appellants. They
deposed that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by the
appellants in collusion with PW12 Rattan Singh who works in the
Cabinet Secretariat and is an influential person. Even, as per the
admitted case of PW12 Rattan Singh, he had three children who were
also living with Rajwanti at his house but none of them had been
made a witness in the present case. Apart from that, it has been shown
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11113333
that a blood stained knife was recovered from Naresh, however, the
said recovery was made from the open plot/field and the same could
be seen by any passers by. Even, no independent witness was joined
at the time of recovery. Apart from that, even the FSL report clearly
suggested that the traces of blood detected on the knife were too small
for Serological tests and it clearly proved that the alleged recovery
had been planted on the appellants. Still further, the trial Court failed
to appreciate that DWI Jai Pal had clearly deposed that Hari Om
alleged eye witness did not visit his house ever. Still further, the
testimony of DW2 Ram Mehar also exonerated the appellants and it is
apparent that they had been falsely involved in the present case.
13. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently
argued that in the present case, PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW3 Hari
Om had witnessed the occurrence and they had supported the case of
the prosecution. Further, it was also apparent that on his arrest,
Naresh got recovered a blood stained knife, which was used in the
commission of the crime. Still further, it was also apparent from the
prosecution evidence that a dispute relating to a plot was pending
between the parties and due to the said motive, Naresh came to the
house of Smt. Rajwanti and committed her murder with the help of
Nesha, co-accused. Learned State counsel further submitted that even
though, Kumari Geeta PW1 and Satish PW4 tried to help the accused,
when they were called for further cross-examination, but their earlier
testimonies were more truthful and when they were recalled after
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11114444
several months, they tried to help the accused by disowning their
earlier statements. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the trial Court is liable to be upheld by this Court.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
15. In the present case, the main argument raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants is that PW1 Kumari Geeta and
PW4 Satish were recalled for further cross-examination and they had
clearly stated that they were not present at the place of alleged
occurrence and had been wrongly shown as eye witnesses. Rather, the
statements made earlier in the Court were under the pressure of police
and also under the pressure of Rattan Singh and Rajesh. The police
had obtained their signatures on blank papers and their previous
statements were not correct. However, we find no substance in the
argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.
The prosecution had initially examined Kumari Geeta PW1 on
08.10.2002 and PW4 Satish also on 09.04.2003. Both the witnesses
had specifically alleged that Naresh and Nesha came to their house.
Naresh was carrying a knife, which was concealed in his Chaddar.
They started hurling filthy abuses at their mother. In the meantime,
when their mother protested, Naresh took out a knife and killed her by
causing injuries with a knife. Nesha, appellant/co-accused was also
holding his mother while she was attacked by Naresh appellant No.1.
The statements of PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4 Satish were duly
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11115555
corroborated by the testimony of Smt. Rajesh PW2, who stated that
about 04 months ago, her son Vikas came to their house at village
Chidana and told her that the appellants and their co-accused had
killed Rajwanti in a room by stabbing her. The prosecution had also
examined another eye witness PW3 Hari Om, who clearly stated that
on hearing the noise, he rushed to the house of Rattan Singh and
found that Naresh appellant No.1 had caused injuries to Rajwanti with
knife and Nesha had caught hold of her hands. On seeing him, both
the appellants ran away from the spot. No doubt, when PW1 Geeta
and PW4 Satish were recalled for further cross-examination on
10.02.2004, i.e., after several months, they had refused to support the
case of the prosecution. However, the earlier statements made by both
the witnesses were consistent in material particulars and the maxim
‘Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus’ does not apply in Indian context.
Apart from that, the statements of three eye witnesses, namely, PW1
Kumari Geeta, PW3 Hari Om and PW4 Satish were duly corroborated
by the testimony of PW7 Dr. Karambir, MO, who found 17 incised
wounds all over the body of Smt. Rajwanti and all the injuries were
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme court has discussed the maxim
‘Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus’ in several land mark judgments
and held that the said maxim of law has no application in India. In the
matter of IIIIssssrrrraaaarrrr vvvveeeerrrrssssuuuussss SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff UUUU....PPPP.... 2222000000005555((((2222)))) RRRRCCCCRRRR((((CCCCrrrriiiimmmmiiiinnnnaaaallll)))) 44440000,,,, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11116666
“17. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab
v. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2407 and Lehna
v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) SCC 76. Stress was laid by
the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of
evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about
desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In
essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno
falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in
everything). This plea is clearly utenable. Even if major
portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case
residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused
notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused
persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty
of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can
be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to
convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that
evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of
other accused persons. Falsity of particular material
witness or material particular would not ruin it from the
beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses
cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno
falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance
nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of
law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to,
is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and
not that it must be disregarded. 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'.
(See Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957
Supreme Court 366)”.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11117777
17. Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of JJJJaaaakkkkkkkkiiii @@@@ SSSSeeeellllvvvvaaaarrrraaaajjjj aaaannnndddd aaaannnnooootttthhhheeeerrrr vvvveeeerrrrssssuuuussss SSSSttttaaaatttteeee RRRReeeepppp....
BBBByyyy tttthhhheeee IIIIPPPP,,,, CCCCooooiiiimmmmbbbbaaaattttoooorrrreeee 2222000000007777((((2222)))) RRRRCCCCRRRR((((CCCCrrrriiiimmmmiiiinnnnaaaallll)))) 111100005555,,,, as under:-
8. As noted above, stress was laid by the accused-
appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered
by PW-13 to contend about desirability to throw out the
entire prosecution case. In essence the prayer is to apply
the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false
in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly
untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to
be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of
an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other
co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It
is the duty of Court to separate the grain from the chaff.
Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it
would be open to the Court to convict an accused
notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to
be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons.
Falsity of particular material witness or material
particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end.
The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no
application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded
as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has
not received general acceptance nor has this maxim
come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a
rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such
cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must
be discarded. 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'. ((((SSSSeeeeeeee NNNNiiiissssaaaarrrr AAAAlllliiii vvvv....
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11118888
TTTThhhheeee SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff UUUUttttttttaaaarrrr PPPPrrrraaaaddddeeeesssshhhh ((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999955557777 SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt
333366666666)))).... Merely because some of the accused persons have
been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so
far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead
as a necessary corollary that those who have been
convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a
Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted
from those who were convicted. ((((SSSSeeeeeeee GGGGuuuurrrrcccchhhhaaaarrrraaaannnn SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh
aaaannnndddd AAAAnnnnrrrr.... vvvv.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff PPPPuuuunnnnjjjjaaaabbbb ((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999955556666 SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt
444466660000)))).... The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India
for if a whole body of the testimony was to be rejected,
because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in
some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of
criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. Witnesses
just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however
true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in
each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in some respects the
Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing
reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not
necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be
disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to
be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound
rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a
witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of
untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or
embellishment. ((((SSSSeeeeeeee SSSSoooohhhhrrrraaaabbbb ssss////oooo BBBBeeeelllliiii NNNNaaaayyyyaaaattttaaaa aaaannnndddd AAAAnnnnrrrr.... vvvv....
TTTThhhheeee SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff MMMMaaaaddddhhhhyyyyaaaa PPPPrrrraaaaddddeeeesssshhhh 1111999977772222 3333 SSSSCCCCCCCC 777755551111)))) aaaannnndddd
UUUUggggaaaarrrr AAAAhhhhiiiirrrr aaaannnndddd OOOOrrrrssss.... vvvv.... TTTThhhheeee SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff BBBBiiiihhhhaaaarrrr ((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999966665555
SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt 222277777777)))). An attempt has to be made to, as
noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate
the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 11119999
is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because
grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the
process of separation an absolutely new case has to be
reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by
the prosecution completely from the context and the
background against which they are made, the only
available course to be made is to discard the evidence in
toto. ((((SSSSeeeeeeee ZZZZwwwwiiiinnnngggglllleeeeeeee AAAArrrriiiieeeellll vvvv.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff MMMMaaaaddddhhhhyyyyaaaa PPPPrrrraaaaddddeeeesssshhhh
((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999955554444 SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt 11115555)))) aaaannnndddd BBBBaaaallllaaaakkkkaaaa SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh aaaannnndddd
OOOOrrrrssss.... vvvv.... TTTThhhheeee SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff PPPPuuuunnnnjjjjaaaabbbb.... ((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999977775555 SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt
1111999966662222)))).... As observed by this Court in SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff RRRRaaaajjjjaaaasssstttthhhhaaaannnn vvvv....
SSSSmmmmtttt.... KKKKaaaallllkkkkiiii aaaannnndddd AAAAnnnnrrrr.... ((((AAAAIIIIRRRR 1111999988881111 SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt 1111333399990000)))),,,,
normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are
due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of
memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition
such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and
those are always there, however honest and truthful a
witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which
are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy
may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not
corrode the credibility of a party's case, material
discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in
KKKKrrrriiiisssshhhhnnnnaaaa MMMMoooocccchhhhiiii aaaannnndddd OOOOrrrrssss.... vvvv.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff BBBBiiiihhhhaaaarrrr eeeettttcccc....,,,, 2222000000002222((((2222))))
RRRRCCCCRRRR ((((CCCCrrrriiiimmmmiiiinnnnaaaallll)))) 555566667777 ((((SSSSCCCC)))) :::: JJJJTTTT 2222000000002222((((4444)))) SSSSCCCC 111188886666....
Applying the principles set out above, it is clear that
even when the testimony of a witness is discarded in part
vis-a-vis some other co accused persons, that cannot per
se be the reason to discard his evidence in toto. As
rightly observed by the trial Court and the High Court,
the evidence of PW-13 has not been shakened in any
manner though he was cross examined at length.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 22220000
Additionally, the trial Court and the High Court have
found that the evidence of the doctor (PW 4) clearly
shows existence of injuries in the manner described by
PW-13 by weapons allegedly held by the appellants. In
that view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal fails and
is dismissed.
18. Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of EEEEddddaaaakkkkkkkkaaaannnnddddiiii DDDDiiiinnnneeeesssshhhhaaaannnn @@@@ PPPP.... DDDDiiiinnnneeeesssshhhhaaaannnn &&&& OOOOrrrrssss....
vvvveeeerrrrssssuuuussss SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff KKKKeeeerrrreeeellllaaaa 2222000022225555 AAAAIIIIRRRR SSSSuuuupppprrrreeeemmmmeeee CCCCoooouuuurrrrtttt 444444444444,,,, as under:-
“19. It is a settled position that 'falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything) that the
above principle is foreign to our criminal law
jurisprudence. This aspect has been considered by this
Court in a plethora of judgements. In the case of RRRRaaaammmm
VVVViiiijjjjaaaayyyy SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh vvvv.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff UUUUPPPP,,,, 2222000022221111 SSSSCCCCCCCC OOOOnnnnlllliiiinnnneeee SSSSCCCC 111144442222 a
Three Judge bench of this Hon'ble Court had held that:
"..(20) We do not find any merit in the arguments raised
by the learned counsel for the Appellant. A part
statement of a witness can be believed even though some
part of the statement may not be relied upon by the
Court. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not
the rile applied by the courts in India. This Court
recently in a judgement IIangovan v. State of T.N. held
that Indian Courts have always been reluctant to apply
the principle as it is only a rile of caution. It was held as
under: (SCC Pg 536, Para 11)"
"..(11) The Counsel for the Appellant lastly argued 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 Counsel is,
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 22221111
in effect, relying on the legal maxim "falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus", which Indian Courts have always
been reluctant to apply. A three Judge bench of this
Court, as far back as in 1957, in NNNNiiiissssaaaarrrr AAAAlllliiii vvvv.... SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff UUUUPPPP,,,,
held on this point as follows (AIR p 368, Para 910)
"(9) This maxim has not received general acceptance in
different jurisdictions in India nor has this maxim come
to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of
Caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the
testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be
disregarded.
(10) 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"
(21) Therefore, merely because a prosecution witness
was not believed in respect of another accused, the
testimony if the said witness cannot be disregarded qua
the present Appellant. Still, further it is not necessary for
the prosecution to examine all the witnesses who might
have witnessed the occurrence. It is the quality if
evidence which is relevant in criminal trial and not the
quantity."
Hence, as can be seen from above, it has being a
consistent stand of this Hon'ble Court that the principle
'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not a rule of evidence
and if the court inspires confidence from the rest of the
testimony of such a witness, it can very well rely on such
a part of the testimony and base a conviction upon it.”
19. In view of the above preposition of law, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the depositions of PW1 Kumari Geeta and PW4
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 22222222
Satish have to be viewed with care and caution. Both the witnesses
had earlier supported the case of the prosecution. However, the
appellant No. 1 is real uncle of the witnesses and it is quite possible
that the other family members had pressurized both the child
witnesses to turn hostile, when they were recalled for further
cross-examination. Consequently, the earlier statements made by both
the witnesses can be safely relied upon, while convicting both the
appellants in the present case.
22220000. Learned counsel for the appellants had vehemently
argued that in the present case, as per the statement of DW2 Ram
Mehar, there was no dispute over the plot as agricultural land and
residential house were partitioned peacefully at the time of separation
and the prosecution had failed to prove the motive on the part of the
appellants to commit the crime. However, we do not agree with the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.
In fact, DW2 Ram Mehar is real brother of appellant No.1 and he
returned to India after several days of the occurrence. Even, he tried
to help the appellants by stating that there was no dispute relating to
the plots, but he could not produce any documentary evidence in this
regard. Even otherwise, it is a case of eye witness account and the eye
witnesses have been found to be reliable by this Court. Consequently,
the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is meritless
and is rejected.
22221111. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to impress us
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 22223333
by raising an argument that three children of PW12 namely Vinod,
Sanjay and Pooja were also living with Rajwanti and none of them
were made a witness in the present case. However, the said argument
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the prosecution had already
cited three witnesses, namely, PW1 Kumari Geeta, PW3 Hari Om and
PW4 Satish and there was no need of citing more eye witnesses in the
present case. Moreover, the FSL report clearly suggested that the
traces of blood were detected on the knife, which was recovered from
appellant No.1. The FSL report cannot be rejected on the ground that
the traces of blood detected on the knife were too small for
serological tests and we find the argument to be illogical.
22. In view of the above discussion, we find no hesitation to
hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against both
the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the appeal
is without any merit. The impugned judgment dated 19.05.2004 and
order dated 21.05.2004 passed by the trial Court are upheld. As a
consequence, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
23. The appellant/accused are directed to surrender within 15
days from today, failing which, the CJM concerned shall issue non
bailable warrants against the present appellants/accused and shall
commit them to custody to serve the remaining sentence of
imprisonment.
24. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
CCCCRRRRAAAA----DDDD----555599995555----DDDDBBBB ooooffff 2222000000004444 22224444
25. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules.
26. Records of the Court below be sent back.
((((NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT))))
JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
((((SSSSUUUUKKKKHHHHVVVVIIIINNNNDDDDEEEERRRR KKKKAAAAUUUURRRR))))
28.10.2025 J JJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE
amit rana
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....