IMPORTANT POINT
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness and Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse such evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Deceased was driving two wheeler scooter with PW1 as pillion rider and their two other friends PWs 2 & 3 were on other scooter — Near railway gate an auto rickshaw overtook them and in the process deceased lost control of his vehicle and fell down — Four appellants-accused got down from autorickshaw and attacked deceased who died on spot — Post mortem report showed there were number of cut and stab injuries on body classified under 10 heads — Out of four eye witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 turned hostile — PW4, auto driver, though supported prosecution case when examined in chief but made volte-face when was recalled for cross-examination a month after his initial examination — Conviction by trial Court and High Court upheld conviction — Appeal — Contention regarding interestedness of witnesses — Relationship was not a factor to affect credibility of witness but Court had to adopt a careful approach — Maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” had no application in India — Non-mentioning in FIR about source of light was non-consequential — Occurrence took place at about 7 PM in month of April — Judgment of High Court did not suffer any infirmity to warrant interference.
       Held : We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if 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 12)
       Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by PW3 to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, conviction can be maintained. 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 of some of the witnesses has been found to be deficient. 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 17)
       Non mention in the FIR about the source of light is really non consequential. It is well settled that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the facts concerning the crime merely because of minutest details of occurrence were not mentioned in the FIR the same cannot make the prosecution case doubtful. It is not necessary that minutest details should be stated in the FIR. It is sufficient if a broad picture is presented and the FIR contains the broad features. For lodging FIR, in a criminal case and more particularly in a murder case, the stress must be on prompt lodging of the FIR. Therefore mere absence of indication about the source of light does not in any way affect the prosecution version. Additionally the decision in Bollanarams case (supra) is really of no assistance to the appellant. It is apparent that the observation regarding the non-mention about the source of light in that case was by way of description of the factual scenario. It was noted by the court that victims were strangers to the accused. In that background the source of light was found to be of some importance.(Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the four appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. Accusations which led to trial of the appellants was that on 27.4.1999 at about 8.30 p.m. they caused homicidal death of one Khaja Saheb (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased) by hacking and stabbing with sickles and knives.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On 27.4.1999, sometime prior to the occurrence, Khaja Saheb (the deceased) S. Venkateswara Reddy, G. Thirumalesh Gowd and T. Sreenivaslu (PWs. 1, 2 and 3) were at a place called "Ramesh Hotel" near the Silver Jubilee College of Kurnool Town. Thereafter they started on 2 two wheelers i.e. the deceased and PW1 on the first vehicle, followed by PWs. 2 and 3 on another vehicle. The deceased was driving the first of the above mentioned two wheelers. PW1 was the pillion rider. When the deceased and PW1 reached near the railway gate located on their way, an auto-rickshaw overtook them. In that process, the deceased lost the control of the vehicle and they fell down. According to Ex.P1 complaint, lodged by PW1 which was received by Sub-inspector (PW8) at about 10.30 AM on the very same night, all the four appellants herein got down from the above mentioned auto rickshaw, attacked the deceased. As a result of the said attack, the deceased breathed his last on the spot. In fact, from the evidence of Dr. M.S. R.K. Prasad, the doctor (PW10) who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased, there were number of cut and stab injuries on the body classified under ten heads. Immediately, after the incident, PW1 went to the residence of the deceased, informed the kith and kin of the deceased around 8.45 P.M. Afterwards, PW1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

4. PW8 the Sub-Inspector of Police who received Ex.P1 at about 10.30 P.M., registered Crime No. 113 of 1999 under Section 302 IPC. He also informed the Inspector of Police, (PW9) Kurnool Town at that relevant point of time. On receipt of the information, PW9 went to the scene of offence, posted guard at the scene of offence and on the next morning i.e., 28.4.1999, PW9 secured the presence of witnesses PWs. 1, 2 Sayed Bade Bi (PW5) and B. Hussainappa (PW6) commenced the inquest around 7.30 A.M. He seized MOs. 1 to 3 the apparels of the deceased and after conclusion of the inquest, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. On 8.5.1999 he arrested all the appellants at a place called "Papaji Dabha". During the course of interrogation the accused are said to have made a confessional statement, which led to the recovery of M.Os. 7 to 10 under the cover of Ex.P.14 Mahazir. The charge sheet was filed by the successor in the office of PW 9.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, proved 15 documents and exhibited 10 M.Os. Of the 10 witnesses examined, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 were cited as eye witnesses. PW1 did not support the prosecution case in full. Therefore, the prosecution cross-examined him. PW2 did not support the prosecution case at all. Mala Venkateswarulu the (PW4) – auto rickshaw driver – though initially supported the prosecution case in full, made a volte-face and totally resiled from his earlier version when he was recalled for further cross-examination by the defence a month after his initial examination. He was at that stage cross-examined by the prosecution.

6. Similarly, T. Krishna (PW7) who was the panch witness for Ex.P 13 i.e., arrest Mahazir of the appellant accused, did not support the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge on elaborate consideration of the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants-accused were guilty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 649

IMPORTANT POINTRelationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness and Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse such evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness and Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse such evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.