IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because some of the accused 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 convicted must also be acquitted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Appellant with ten others caught hold of deceased who was alleged to be political rival of prosecution party and appellant fired gun shot on chest of deceased-Trial ended in conviction of appellant alone and acquittal of rest all accused-High Court upheld conviction-Appeal-Contention that acquittal of other accused was on same set of evidence and that witnesses were relatives of deceased and were partisan-Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of witness and court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out that it was cogent and credible-Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" had not been a rule of law but was merely a rule of caution-Accusation against appellant were established and Courts below indicated distinguishing features in evidence so far as acquittal and convicted accused were concerned-Conviction called for no interference.
       Held : Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation or a friend would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible (See Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002 (8) SCC 381). The trial Court and High Court have kept the legal principles in view and made detailed and elaborate analysis of the evidence. (Para 7)
       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 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 . (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1957 SC 366). 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. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because 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. (See Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 3 SCC 751) and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 277). An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it 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. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Politics, which was once considered the choice of noble and decent persons is increasingly becoming a haven for law breakers. The Nelsons eye turned by those wielding power to criminalisation of politics by their solemn and determined patronage and blessings by vying with each other has been encouraging and facilitating rapid spread and growth with rich rewards and dividends to criminals. The alarming rate of social respectability such elite gangsterism gaining day by day in the midst of people who chose and had given unto themselves the right to elect their rulers, mostly guided by misdirected allegiance to party politics and self oriented profit making endeavours seem to provide the required nectar for its manifold and myriad ways of ventilation with impugnity. Though it is an irony, yet accepted truth is that the Home rule we could achieve by non-violence has become the root cause for generating homicidal culture of political governance effectively shielded by unprincipled mass sympathies and highly profit-oriented selfish designs of unscrupulous people who have many faceted images to present themselves at times to the extent of their deification. For some it brings seal for respectability and for some others, it is intended to be used as a shield for protection against law enforcing agencies and that is how reports of various Commissions and Committees have become sheer cry in wilderness.

2. About three decades back one Ram Anugrah Singh alias Annu Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased ) was a victim of political rivalry. He paid price for allegedly being a loyal member of one political party which was not to the liking of some including the present appellant. Debacle of Parliamentary by-election of 1969 is said to have provided the impetus to do away with the life of the deceased on 7.4.1969. The appellant along with 10 others including the members of the Parliament and legislative assembly were alleged to be responsible for his death. Eleven persons in total faced trial for offences punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ). Appellant was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Arms Act ). Eight others were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Two others breathed their last during trial.

3. Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:

Ram Bilash Singh (PW5), deceased and one Ramanand Jha (PW-2) had gone to withdraw money from a bank at Barauni. The deceased also carried some amount to be paid to a wood seller. After withdrawal of money from the bank all the three persons proceeded on bicycle and reached near the post office of their village Bihat. At that time three of the accused persons namely, Surya Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh coming from a place of some political meeting saw them. They were followed by many other persons including the accused persons. Four accused persons including the appellant caught hold of the deceased. While accused Ram Ratan Singh and Umesh Singh caught hold of the informant (PW5), accused Ram Shankar Singh and Sahdeo Singh caught hold of Ramanand Jha (PW-2). Accused Surya Narain Singh. Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh who were leaders of a political party directed others to kill the deceased, as it was a good opportunity to kill him. At the behest of these three persons as aforesaid four persons caught the deceased and took him towards North in the field. Accused-appellant Ram Udgar Singh fired a gun shot on the chest of the deceased. Other accused Suro Singh (since dead) also shot at the deceased. Receiving the gunshot injuries the deceased fell down. Thereafter the accused persons ran away after taking the cash carried by the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Kapildeo Singh, and others arrived there on hear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 309

IMPORTANT POINTMerely because some of the accused 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 convicted must also be acquitted.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because some of the accused 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 convicted must also be acquitted.