Courts cannot disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story based on the remaining evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 304, INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUAL MATRIX - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT AND HIGH COURT - DISBELIEF OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES - RECONSTRUCTION OF CASE BY COURTS - NOT PERMISSIBLE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the appellants and the acquitted accused chased and assaulted the deceased with lathis, bhalas, and pharsas, resulting in his death. The trial court and the High Court, however, disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and reconstructed a different case, finding that the deceased and the witnesses were also participants in the incident.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the courts erred in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses on material particulars and reconstructing a case different from that presented by the prosecution and the witnesses. The Court found that the courts had removed the grain and accepted the chaff, leading to the appellants' wrongful conviction.
Issues: Whether the courts were justified in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and reconstructing a different case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is not a sound rule of law or practice. The Court emphasized the need to scrutinize evidence carefully and separate the truth from embellishments, but not to disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story based on the remaining evidence.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, directing their release.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J.: This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna confirming the conviction of the appellants and the sentence passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra, under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The possession case may be briefly stated. On April 18, 1960, at about 1 p. m. Sheonandan had gone on a bicycle to tola Korra in search of labourers. While he was returning from tola Korra by the village path leading from there to Sahbajpur and then to Nathpur, three of the accused by name Sudama, Chhathu and Nathuni, who were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, came from the eastern side of a well situated to the south of the said village path and began chasing him with lathis and making noise. The rest of the accused, by name Ugar, Chandrika, Mahadeo and Chandan who are the appellants herein, were sitting under a Bar tree to the west of the well, and they emerged with bhalas and pharsas and surrounded Sheonandan. The other accused with lathis also arrived there. Sheonandan threw away his bicycle and ran towards Habibnagar; he was being chased by the 7 accused and at the same time being assaulted by them with lathis, bhalas and pharsas. After running through several fields Sheonandan reached the field of one Mahadeo Ahir to the north of the road. There he turned round, snatched the bhala from the hands of appellant Chandrika and gave some bhala blows to him and Ugar. Chandrika recovered his bhala and again all the appellants and the, acquitted accused struck Sheonandan with the weapons they were carrying. Sheonandan fell down in the field of Mahadeo Ahir and died. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 saw the chase and the assaults from a distance and they asked the appellants and the acquitted accused not to assault Sheonandan; but instead of stopping the assault of Sheonandan, they assaulted the said witnesses also with lathis. On the alaram raised by these witnesses, other persons, including the wife and the brother s wife of the deceased arrived at the spot. The doctor s evidence disclosed 25 injuries on the dead body of Sheonandan, both punctured and incised. There were also injuries on the bodies of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Two of the appellants, Ugar and Chandrika had also punctured wounds on their bodies. The appellants and the acquitted accused were sent up for trial to the Sessions Court for the murder of Sheonandan.

3. It will be seen from the prosecution case that the incident, from the time of the pursuit by the three acquitted accused to the time when the witnesses were assaulted, was one transaction. Though a continuous one, for convenience it may be considered under the following different parts : (1) the pursuit of the deceased, who was going on a bicycle, by the three acquitted accused; (2) the joining of the said accused by the appellants at the Bar tree; (3) the joint pursuit of the deceased by all the accused and their assaulting him all the way till he fell down in the field of Mahadeo Ahir; and (4) the intercession of witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, and the assault made on them by two of the appellants and the acquitted accused.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the entire evidence arrived at the following findings :(1) There were two factions in the village - the accused belonging to one faction and the deceased and the witnesses belonging to the other; some members of each group were wrestlers; and there was previous history of criminal proceedings between these two factions. (2) the case of the prosecution that the three accused, who were acquitted, chased the deceased with lathis was frivolous.(3)The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses that when they asked the accused not to assault the deceased the accused assaulted them with bhalas and lathis was not acceptable. 4. Neither the bicycle was found nor were there any marks of the cycle on the pathway. (5) The evidence of the witnesses that la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document