J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and sentence dated 14.06.2002 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)) District Chhatarpur in Special Case No.57/2001, by which appellant has been convicted for the following offences:-

Section	Act	Punishment	Fine	In default
294	IPC	R.I. for 3 months	--	--
323	IPC	R.I. for 3 months
3(1)(x)	Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.	R.I. for 1 year	Rs.500/-	R.I. for 1 month

(All the sentences shall run concurrently.)

2. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.08.2000 at about 4.30 P.M. appellant Moti Singh torn the proceedings of monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat Bhiyantal and also after catching hold of the complainant threw him on the ground and assaulted him by fists and blows. As a result he sustained injuries. Appellant had also insulted the complainant by calling him by his caste name and said that he himself would write the proceedings and complainant is nobody to demand for the same and also alleged that he would kill the Sarpanch as well as Secretary and also demanded that money should be paid to him. FIR was lodged against appellant and co-accused Ganesh. The spot map was prepared. The torned proceeding Register was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2). Appellant and co-accused were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7). The medical examination of injured Chutua is Ex.P/3. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Police after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 294, 506- B, 323, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The trial Court by order dated 24.04.2001 framed charges under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part –II of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against appellant. Similar charges were framed against the co-accused.

4. Appellant as well as co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Chutua (P.W.1), Bhanulal Rajak (P.W.2), Dr. R.P. Gupta (P.W.3), Ramlal Ahirwar (P.W.4), Bhagirath Dubey (P.W.5), R.S. Badal (P.W.6), Munna Singh (P.W.7) and B.S. Yadav (P.W.8). Appellant and co-accused Ganesh examined Ramsharan (D.W.1) and Shyam Singh Parihar (D.W.2), Dr. D.S. Kindra (D.W.3)

and Narayan Singh (D.W.4).

6. The trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence acquitted co- accused Ganesh for all the offences and convicted appellant for offence under Sections 294, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment as already mentioned above.

7. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that once the trial Court had found that evidence of prosecution witnesses is not reliable for the co-accused Ganesh, then conviction of appellant is unwarranted.

8. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State.

9. So far as the contention of counsel for appellant that once the evidence of witnesses has not been found to be convincing for co- accused, then the trial Court should not have convicted the appellant on the basis of similar evidence is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that the said contention cannot be accepted. It is well established principle of law that doctrine of falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus has no recognition in India.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan (Smt.) Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Another reported in (2003)

7 SCC 749 has held as under :

“25. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document