2009 Supreme(SC) 216

2009(1) Supreme 757
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Jayaseelan — Appellant
versus
State of Tamil Nadu — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2002
Decided on : 10-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” 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.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of deceased by stabbing him with a knife – Trial Court acquitted both of accused persons – State Appeal – High Court while confirming acquittal of A2, convicted A1 – Appeal – High Court rightly found that in view of evidence of PWs 1 & 2 trial court was not justified in directing acquittal on plea of delay in lodging FIR – Occurrence had taken place around 5 PM and immediate concern was to render medical assistance – The complaint was lodged around 7.30 PM. – Again injuries on A1 were of superficial nature and hence, trial court was not justified in directing acquittal – Apart from that even if there was any delay in investigation that was not sufficient to discard credible oral evidence of prosecution witnesses PWs. 1 & 2 – Absolutely confusing judgment of trial court held to have been rightly interfered with by High Court – Appeal, having no substance dismissed. (Paras 4 to 6)

        Principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” – Applicability of – Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of deceased by stabbing him with a knife – Trial Court acquitted both of accused persons – State Appeal – High Court while confirming acquittal of A2, convicted A1 – Appeal – Stress was laid by accused-ppellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by PW1 to a large extent to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case – However said plea was held to be clearly untenable-Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained – It is the duty of the 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, or to be not wholly credible – Falsity of 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 witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar(s) – 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. (Para 5)

        AIR 1957 SC 366 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Accused persons two in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by stabbing him with a knife.Trial Court acquitted both of accused persons. On State Appeal, High Court while confirming acquittal of A2, convicted A1.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court rightly found that in view of evidence of PWs 1 & 2 trial court was not justified in directing acquittal on plea of delay in lodging FIR .Occurrence had taken place around 5 PM and immediate concern was to render medical assistance. The complaint was lodged around 7.30 PM. Again injuries on A1 were of superficial nature and hence , trial court was not justified in directing acquittal .Apart from that even if there was any delay in investigation that was not sufficient to discard credible oral evidence of prosecution witnesses PWs. 1 & 2 .Absolutely confusing judgment of trial court held to have been rightly interfered with by High Court. Appeal, having no substance was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.