2021 Supreme(All) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BACHCHOO LAL, SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, JJ.
Jagdish & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 3210 of 2011
Decided On : 01-07-2021

Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves removed from the spot as far as possible. Yet others rush to rescue the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.It is needless to observe that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions in this country and therefore, it is the duty of the Court in cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 / 34 - Arms Act , 1959 - Section 25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 82, 83, 161, 313 - The appellants and co-accused were examined by the trial court - They denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity - Appellants stated that informant wanted to encroach their plot in the garb of the murder - Murder took place at different place and time by other persons, a false report has been lodged against them for taking possession of their plot – Appellants did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence - Trial court held motive is not of much importance where positive evidence of eye-witnesses against the accused persons is clear in relation to the offence; mere absence of motive, even if assumed, will not per se entitle the accused persons to acquittal, if otherwise, the commission of the crime is proved by cogent and reliable evidence - Whether the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 eye-witnesses raises serious doubts on the point of their presence near the place of the incident at the time of the occurrence - whether the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 are intrinsically reliable or not and their presence is satisfactorily explained or not .

Finding of the court: It is a settled position of law that non-examination of independent witnesses by itself may not give rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution, but when the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses raises serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witnesses would assume significance - Quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement - That the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses said to have seen the occurrence - Principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a witness would not ruin it from the beginning to the end- Material witnesses considered necessary by the prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story alone need be produced with unnecessary and redundant multiplication of witnesses - Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution case if it is otherwise supported by reliable and credible evidence - Unless the lapses on the part of the investigation are such as to cast reasonable doubt about the prosecution story or seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the court will not set aside the conviction - Prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Criminal Appeals dismissed