2025 Supreme(SC) 31

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Kerela – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013
Decided On : 06-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Crime creates sense of societal fear and it affects adversely societal conscience – It is inequitable and unjust if such a situation is allowed to perpetuate and continue in society – Courts in discharge of their duties are tasked with balancing of interests of accused on one hand and State/society on other.
(2) Murder – Accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by prosecuting agency.
(3) Principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to Indian criminal jurisprudence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Balancing of Interests – Crime creates sense of societal fear and it affects adversely societal conscience – It is inequitable and unjust if such a situation is allowed to perpetuate and continue in society – In every civilized society, purpose of criminal administrative system is to protect individual dignity and to restore societal stability and order and to create faith and cohesion in society – Courts in discharge of their duties are tasked with balancing of interests of accused on one hand and State/society on other. (Para 10)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) read with Section 190] – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 5 – Murder of two persons – Conviction and sentence – Death of both victims was homicidal – Though there is a variance in statements of witnesses, it is minor and not of such a nature which would drive their testimony untrustworthy – There is no Mahazar suggesting particulars of Jeep or examination of Jeep for bloodstains or any other evidence to show that his body was carried in a police jeep showing that theory of police jeep was introduced by police – It is a natural human conduct that to save life of someone, entire focus of person in such a situation would be to take injured to hospital rather than wasting time on giving minute details – It was a prudent conduct on part of PW-1 – Omission to state “police” jeep does not constitute a material omission or contradiction – Version put forth by prosecution witnesses inspires confidence of this Court – Specific role attributed by prosecution witnesses cannot be challenged on extraneous grounds which have been raised by defence – There is no contradiction when it comes to assigning specific role to accused – There was enmity between witnesses as they were from different political groups – On account of defective investigation benefit will not enure to accused persons on that ground alone – It is well within domain of courts to consider rest of evidence which prosecution has gathered such as statement of eyewitnesses, medical report etc. – Accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by prosecuting agency – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 15, 17, 22, 26 and 27)

(C) Interpretation of Statutes – “Noscitur a sociis” is a well-recognized principle used for interpretation of statutes – Meaning of a word can be determined by context of sentence; it is to be judged by company it keeps – Though this principle is used for interpretation of words in a statute, inherent principle can very well be applied to facts of present case which have be seen in context of entire set of events that had transpired that night. (Para 16)

(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to Indian criminal jurisprudence – Only because there are some contradictions which are not even that material, entire story of prosecution cannot be discarded as false – It is duty of Court to separate grain from chaff – In a given case, it is also open to Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons – Principle ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not a rule of evidence and if court inspires confidence from rest of testimony of such a witness, it can very well rely on such part of testimony and base conviction upon it. (Paras 19 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present criminal appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 12th April 2011 passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in Cri. Appeal No. 1040/2006. By impugned judgment and order, Appellants/Accused-A4 to A10 and A13 to A15 have been acquitted under Sections 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 while conviction and sentence against A1 to A3 and A11 and A12 was confirmed. Additionally, A3 was convicted and sentenced under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Findings of Court:

As regards the conviction of A3 under Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is concerned, this court is of the opinion that mere act of throwing bomb by A3 would give rise to reasonable suspicion that he did not have the bomb in his control for a lawful object. High Court has rightly upheld conviction of A3 for Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Result : Appeal dismissed.