Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (D.B.)
S.C. Jain and I.S. Mathur, JJ.
Naurangi Lal - Appellant
versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Crt Appeal No. 2369 of 1980
Decided on 30.3.1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant: G.S. Chaturvedi.
For the Respondent: P.K. Tewari, A.G.A
(ii) Evidence - Relation witnesses - Testimony of interested witness cannot be discarded merely on that count - Merely because there is no blood stain on clothes of a witness, who is closely related to deceased or injured, may not by itself be conclusive of fact regarding his presence or otherwise - This will depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
Held: In the present case it is no doubt true that PW . 1 Mani Ram is alleged to have been coming with Patiram when he was shot and Mani Ram did not have any blood stains on his clothes, but it is in evidence that he was coming behind Patiram and was a few paces behind. He is not as closely related to Patirani as the witnesses in the two aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court were. Further no questions have been put to this witness in cross examination as to Sic in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant in this Court. It is possible that if such a question had been asked, he might have given some plausible explanation in that regard. It is settled law that no circumstances can be read adversely to a witness unless that circumstance is put to him and his explanation is obtained. (Para 21)
(iii) Evidence -First Information Report Failure to include minutest details of crime - Not fatal - It is enough if broad features of crime are revealed in the report. (Para 24)
(iv) Evidence - Murder case - Acquittal of co-accused - Applicability of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' in India - When case of appellant is distinguishable from case of accused acquitted - Case against appellant also cannot be held to be doubtful.
Held, that since the doctrine 'Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus' is not applicable in India the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely because the witnesses or some of them have not been truthful in regard to some of the accused or part of the prosecution version. In such a case the only requirement oflaw will be that the testimony of these witnesses in regard to the remaining version or the case against the other accused will have to be considered by the Court with more care and caution. The Court will have to determine whether the statements of the prosecution witnesses or the prosecution version in regard to the accused who have been found to be not involved or against whom the case appears to be doubtful could be separated from the case against rest of the accused and as to whether the statements and the version in regard to the rest of the accused could withstand more cautious and careful scrutiny. In other words, where truth and falsehood could be separated and court finds the case against the other accused to be convincingly proved beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no illegality in convicting the other accused or upholding their conviction. If, on the other hand, on a consideration of the substratum of the prosecution case, the truth and falsehood arc found to be so inextricably mixed up as to be incapable of being separated the entire case of the prosecution may have to be rejected. (Para 33)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
I.S. Mathur, J.- The appellant Naurangi Lal, along with one Bhagwant, have been convicted under sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C., by judgment and order dated 15.10.1980 passed by and Additional Sessions Judge, Etah. The third accused, Pati Ram son of Bhagwant, was acquitted. The appellants were, however, acquitted for offence under section 323/34 I.P.C.
2. Bhagwant filed a separate appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1980. It was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Bhagwant has died. The report in this regard has been called from the C.J.M. Etah and, in the meanwhile, it was directed that the appeal of Bhagwant be de-linked.
3. The deceased Patiram, son of Liladhar, was the real brother of the complainant Mani Ram. Maharaj Singh is the son of the complant. Accused Pati Ram and Naurangi Lal are teal brothers and Bhagwant is their father. The accused above named and the complainant and the deceased were residents of the same village Joga Mai Kalan. According to the prosecution, on 14.10.1979 the appellant, along with other accused, encroached upon the land in possession of Mani Ram by digging foundation and constructing foundation wall. This was objected to by Maharaj Singh and others. The complainant Mani Ram' along with the deceased Patiram were working on their 'Rahat' at about 12 noon. They heard the shouts of Maharaj Singh. On hearing thy shouts the complainant and the deceased Patiram rushed towards the village abadi and found that the accused Pati Ram son of Bhagwant and Bhagwant armed with lathis and Naurangi Lal armed with the licensed gun of his brother were quarrelling with the children. The complainant said to them that they have dug up a foundation illegally and on the top of it they are quarrelling. On shouts being raised Chob Singh and other persons came there. The accused attacked the complainant and others with lath is and gun causing injuries to Pati Ram and his son Maharaj Singh. A first information report of this incident was lodged by Mani Ram on 14.10.1979 at 2 p.m. at police station Kotwali, district Etah and a case under section 307 I.P.C. was registered. Pati Ram, who was alive till then, and Maharaj Singh were sent to the hospital where P.W. 2 Dr. R.P. Dixit examined them. He found the following injuries on their person:
Pati Ram
1. Abraded contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the left side front of chest left side 5 cm above the left nipple and 7 cm. below the left clavicle.
2. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen 3 cm. below the left lower border of rib.
3. One firearm wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm. on the left side of abdomen 7 cm. from the mid line and 7 cm. below the lower border of rib left side. It is cavity deep, probing not done due to surgical reasons.
4. Eight firearm wounds of entry each 1 cm x 1 cm, probing not done due to surgical reasons, depth could not be ascertained bleeding profusely. It is in the left groin area in an area of 15 cm x 10 cm.
5. Abrasion 3 cm. x 3 cm. on the outer side of left thigh upper part in the G.T. of femur area.
Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were simple and appear to have been caused by friction with some hard object while injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were kept under observation and were used by firearm. The injuries were fresh in duration.
Maharaj Singh
1. One firearm wound of entry 1 cm.x 1 cm. on the right side of abdomen 2 cm. from mid line and 2 cm. above umbilicus. It is cavity deep, no bleeding present probing not done due to surgical reasons.
2. One firearm wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the lower border of rib, cavity deep, probing not done due to surgical reasons, no bleeding present. Advised X-ray.
3. One firearm wound of entry, 1 cm. x 1cm. muscle deep on the right side front and middle part. Margine inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present, direction backward and horizontal. Advised X-ray.
Injury No.3 was simple while injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were kept under observation. X-ray was ad
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
