2007(2) Crimes 217 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Kalegura Padma Rao & Anr. - Appellants
versus
The State of A.P. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2007
Decided on 19-2-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 300, 302, 304-I - Culpable homicide and Murder - Assailants entering house of deceased armed with iron rods, axes and lathis and beat him indiscriminately after chasing him - Deceased had made complaint against A1 before Sarpanch - Conviction u/s 304-I r/ws 149 IPC - Custodial sentence of 10 years.

       Held : Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. (Para 26)

       The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each, that it may not be convenient to give a separate and clear cut treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages. (Para 27)

       If the evidence on record is considered on the touchstone principles set out above the inevitable conclusion is that the proper conviction would be Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. (Para 29)

       (ii) CRIMINAL TRIAL - Relation Witnesses - Evidentiary value - Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made - In such cases Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304-I.

       Held : In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para 8)

       We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh’s case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. (Para 11)

       (iii) CRIMINAL TRIAL - Maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) - Inapplicability in India - It is merely a rule of caution - Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304.

       Held : It is the duty of 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 to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or 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 witnesses cannot be branded as liar. 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 13)

       Result : Appeal allowed accordingly.