IMPORTANT POINT
Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is merely a rule of caution but where evidence is totally unreliable and it will be impossible to separate truth from falsehood to an extent that they are inextricably mixed up then conviction would not be sustained.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellant-Narain (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) questions legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held his conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) to be in order. Consequentially, sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine proposed were affirmed.

2. Eight persons faced trial including the appellant for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149. 323/149, 324/149 and 450 IPC. The Trial Court held that the accusations were not established. Against rest of the seven while it was established only in respect of appellant relating to the offence for which he has been found guilty. The accused-appellant was made to undergo imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. The order of conviction was questioned by the appellant before the High Court. The State also questioned the legality of the acquittal as directed for rest of the accused. A revision application was filed by the father of the Makhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) with similar prayers as that of the State.

3. The prosecution story in brief is as follows:

On 24.2.1986 at about 6.30 a.m. at village Murachh, the informant Halke, alias Laxman (PW-14) had gone to call his labourers who were under a Pipal tree. The accused persons armed with Farsa, ballam, etc. came there and surrounded him. Accused-appellant Narain Singh incited the others to assault him and exhorted that he should not be permitted to escape and should be done to death. Thereafter Narain Singh assaulted Laxman (PW-14) with a Farsa on his head. Tijji Bai (PW-6) came on the spot to save Halke, but she was also assaulted. Thereafter, the accused persons chased the deceased Makhan and assaulted him with Farsa, axe and sticks near the house of Sukka Baniya (DW-2). Parvati Bai (PW-10), Siya Bai (PW-13), Kanchhi Bai and Lalla Bai and Khilan Singh (PW-4) came to the spot in order to save Halke, but they were also assaulted. Siya Bai (PW-13) and others took deceased Makhan inside the house of Sukka (DW-2) in order to save him, but the accused persons entered the house and assaulted Makhan there also. The report of the incident was lodged on the same day at 11.00 a.m. by Laxman Singh (PW-14), which was recorded as Dehati Nalsi (First information report). On the basis of said report, investigation was undertaken and the accused persons were arrested.

4. The accused persons pleaded innocence and also took definite stand that on account of enmity and rivalry prosecution witnesses who claimed to be the eyewitnesses and to have sustained injuries assaulted the accused persons and in any event they have acted in exercise of right of private defence. They also stated that true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and the occurrence did not take place at the places indicated by the prosecution.

5. The Trial Court found that the prosecution has not really come out with actual scenario. According to prosecution the occurrence took place at 3 different places. But the evidence was to the contrary. The occurrence took place at a place different from where it was claimed by the prosecution. It also found unexplained discrepancies in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, held that seven out of the eight accused persons were not guilty. So far as the appellant is concerned, it was held that though the evidence on record indicates that assaults were made by the deceased and some of the prosecution witnesses, on whom, yet the deceased had exceeded his right of private defence, even though the same may have been available to him at some point of time. The High Court confirmed the conclusions and affirmed the conviction and sentence. It dismissed, by a common judgment appeal of the State and revision filed by father of the deceased.

6. In support of the appe