2017 Supreme(MP) 1238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Kallu Singh @ Hakim Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 38 of 2004
Decided On : 19-04-2017

The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and merely because if the evidence of witness is partially found unbelievable would not mean that his entire evidence should be discarded.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 374 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE] - [JUDGMENT DATED 27-12-2003] - [S.T. NO. 25/2003] - [SECOND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DABRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR] - [CONVICTION AND SENTENCE] - [INDIAN PENAL CODE SECTIONS 148, 307, 149] - [SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT] - [KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, THEIR INTERPRETATIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION].

Fact of the Case:

The complainant Laxman Singh lodged an FIR on 14-9-2002 alleging that he along with his brother Raghuvir were going to their houses. It was about 7:00 in the evening, the appellant Kunwar Singh armed with gun, Kallu armed with Farsa, Rajvir armed with Lathi, Raje armed with sword, Puttu armed with Lathi, Anar Singh armed with Farsa, Santu and Karan Singh armed with lathi came there and scolded his brother Raghuvir as to why he is not repaying the money. On the dispute of money transaction, the appellant Kallu with an intention to kill his brother assaulted by means of Farsa causing injury on his head, Raje assaulted by means of axe causing injury on his forehead, Anar Singh assaulted by means of Farsa causing injury above the left eye, Karan Singh assaulted by means of axe causing injury above the left ear, Kunwar Singh was standing there pointing his gun whereas Puttu, Santu, Rajvir assaulted by means of lathis, as a result of which, injuries were sustained by his brother. Ghanshyam Jat, Bali Jat etc. came there after hearing the alarm and they have also seen the incident. The police registered the crime, prepared the spot map, arrested the accused persons, seized the weapons of crime, sent the injured Raghuvir for medical treatment and after recording the statements of the witnesses filed the charge-sheet for offences under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that Kunwar had pointed the gun at the time of the incident whereas Kallu, Raje, Anar Singh and Karan Singh had assaulted the injured Raghuvir by means of Farsa, Axe and sword causing injuries on the head of the injured Raghuvir. Two fractures on the head region of the injured Raghuvir were also found. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Puttu, Santu and Rajvir had assaulted the injured Raghuvir by means of Lathi. Accordingly, Puttu, Santu and Rajvir were acquitted of the charge under section 323 of Indian Penal Code.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant Puttu, Santu and Rajvir had assaulted the injured Raghuvir by means of Lathi? 2. Whether the appellants Rajvir, Puttu and Santu were the members of an unlawful assembly and whether they can be convicted with the aid of section 149 of Indian Penal Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Puttu, Santu and Rajvir had assaulted the injured Raghuvir by means of Lathi. 2. The prosecution has failed to prove that Rajvir, Puttu and Santu were the members of the unlawful assembly.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant No. 2 Santu Singh @ Santram, appellant No. 4 Puttu @ Kumre and appellant No. 7 Rajvir is allowed. They are acquitted of all the charges. Their bail bonds and personal bonds stand discharged. The appeal filed by appellant No. 1 Kallu Singh @ Hakim Singh, appellant No. 3 Karan Singh, appellant No. 5 Raje @ Rajendra Singh, appellant No. 6 Anar Singh, appellant No. 8 Pappu @ Kunwar Singh is dismissed.