2012 Supreme(SC) 398

2012 (4) Supreme 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan & Dipak Misra, JJ.
Ramesh Harijan — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2007
Decided on 21-05-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
2. Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302,376-Offence of rape and murder of a minor girl-Acquittal by Trial Court-State Appeal-Conviction by High Court-Appeal- Sufficient evidence on record to show that, maternal grandmother of deceased, was totally blind and used to sleep in the house of appellant with deceased- Trial court gave undue importance to minor contradictions in depositions of witnesses- Even though there were exaggeration in evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly, that of PW.1, PW.7 and PW.8- However, it was the duty of court to unravel the truth under all circumstances- Evidence of PW.1, PW.7 and PW.8 could be relied upon at least to the extent that deceased was last seen in the company of appellant- Evidence on record that after committing crime outside, appellant brought the corpus of child and placed it on the cot-Acquittal in the instant case by trial court was totally illegal, unwarranted and based on mis-appreciation of evidence for the reason that court had given undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in miscarriage of justice- High Court was fully justified in reversing order of acquittal- Appeal dismissed (Paras 18 to 27)

        Appeal against Acquittal-Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, appellate court can interfere with order of acquittal- The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and that trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence-Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference (Para 16)

        Evidence of Hostile witness-Admissibility of- Evidence of a hostile witness cannot be totally rejected if spoken in favour of prosecution or accused but is required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of evidence which is consistent with case of prosecution or defence can be relied upon (Para 19)

        Maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus- The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and witness cannot be branded as a liar- In case this maxim is applied in all the cases 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- Hence, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well (Para 24)

       Facts of the Case :

        A.The appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for committing rape on a minor girl and thereafter committing her murder. On appreciation of evidence on record ,Trial Court acquitted appellant. On Appeal, however High Court convicted appellant.

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

       Findings of the Court :

        A.The Court held that there was Sufficient evidence on record to show that, maternal grandmother of deceased, was totally blind and used to sleep in the house of appellant with deceased. Trial court gave undue importance to minor contradictions in depositions of witnesses.Even though there were exaggeration in evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly, that of PW.1, PW.7 and PW.8. However, it was the duty of court to unravel the truth under all circumstances. Evidence of PW.1, PW.7 and PW.8 could be relied upon at least to the extent that deceased was last seen in the company of appellant. Evidence on record that after committing crime outside, appellant brought the corpus of child and placed it on the cot.

        B. Acquittal in the instant case by trial court was totally illegal, unwarranted and based on mis-appreciation of evidence for the reason that court had given undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in miscarriage of justice. High Court was fully justified in reversing order of acquittal. Appeal was dismissed