2006 Supreme(All) 1743

[2006(6) ADJ 6 (NOC)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : IMTIYAZ MURTAZA AND AMAR SARAN, JJ.
KUNDAN SINGH RAWAT AND OTHERS ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ......Opposite Party
(Criminal Appeal No. 1194 of 1998, decided on 6th July, 2006)

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/149, 147 and 148—Murder—Conviction and sentence—Legality of—Incident had taken place in a broad day light—Identity of accused persons not doubtful—Non-examination of scribe of FIR is not always fatal—Motive present to commit crime—Medical evidence corroborated version of assault by axe—Plea of alibi does not find support from witnesses—Acquittal of co-accused does not put shadow on entire prosecution case—Principle of benefit of doubt cannot always be exaggerated—Even hostile witnesses have admitted more or less that incident took place in place and manner alleged in FIR by informant—Offence against appellant No. 1 is fully established, however, benefit of doubt extended to other appellants.

       (B) Criminal trial—Investigation—Not conducted in a completely fair manner—No reason for rejecting prosecution case as a whole.

       (C) FIR—Non-examination of scribe—No advantage can accrue to the defence.

       (D) Criminal trial—Discrepancy—Occurring in document—Need not be put to Investigating Officer—Appears to be per incuriam.

       (E) FIR—Purpose of—Only for setting the investigation process in motion.

       (F) Criminal trial—Motive—Sufficiency of—There were circumstances when appellants got extremely angry and assaulted deceased—Terms between informant and appellants were not good as appellants felt that informant defaming them—There was motive for crime.

       (G) Criminal trial—Murder—Not taking blood stained earth from spot of incident—Necessity of—Deceased was assaulted when she was lying on bed—Even the mattress had been soaked with blood which was taken in possession by police—Not taking of blood stained earth from spot would have been anomalous in the circumstances.

       (H) Criminal trial—Acquittal of co-accused—Effect of—No ground to discard whole prosecution case.

       (I) Words and phrases—Maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus”—Has no application in India.

       (J) Witness—Hostility of some witnesses—Effect of—No reason to discard testimony of witnesses those who stood test of cross-examination—On close scrutiny can be relied upon.

       (K) Criminal trial—Majestty of justice—Upholding of—When witnesses are not prepared to come out with entire truth and are turning hostile—Police and public prosecutor also do not appear to be completely independent—Heavy duty cast on Court to maintain public confidence in administration of justice.

       (L) Criminal trial—Plea of alibi—Rejection of—When this plea was not supported by witnesses—Hence, plea is a concoction and after thought and no credence can be attached to it.

       (M) Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Principle of—No exaggerated devotion allowed.