important point
The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all) does not apply in criminal ases in India.

JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.—

Criminal Appeal No. 116/2006

1.This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2004 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 891-DB of 2003.

2.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.The prosecution case is that at about 2.30 P.M. on 4.8.2002, Sarabjit Singh (PW6) son of Avtar Singh, a resident of village Basiala was going from his house towards his Haveli for feeding his cattle when he heard the shrieks of ‘Bachao-Bachao’ of his grand-mother Joginder Kaur from the fodder room situated in the Haveli. He rushed to that side and saw Kulwinder Singh accused, resident of village Sujjon, whose maternal parents resided in village Basiala inflicting gandasi blows on the neck of Joginder Kaur. On seeing him, Kulwinder Singh ran away from the spot carrying the gandasi with him. On going closer, Sarabjit Singh found that his sister Hardip Kaur was also lying injured in the room writhing in pain. On enquiry, both Hardip Kaur and Joginder Kaur allegedly told Sarabjit Singh that Kulwinder Singh had entered the room for committing rape upon Hardip Kaur and on her resistance, he had put her chuni around her neck and strangulated her. Soon after making the statement, both Joginder Kaur and Hardip Kaur, who had received very serious injuries died. After leaving his father Avtar Singh at the spot to guard the dead bodies, Sarabjit Singh left for the police station, but came across a police party headed by Inspector Maninder Bedi and made a statement to him at about 5.30 P.M. leading to the lodging of the First Information Report at 6.40 P.M. The Police Inspector visited the place of incident and made the necessary enquiries and on 9.8.2002 arrested the accused, and sent him for medical examination. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged on two counts under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial.

4.The trial court in its judgment held that the presence of Sarabjit Singh (PW6) was established beyond doubt and the mere fact that he had not attested some of the documents prepared at the spot, was of no consequence. The trial court also observed that though in the FIR Sarabjit Singh had said that both the deceased had made dying declarations to him, but in the course of evidence had qualified his statement by stating that only Hardip Kaur had done so. This was a discrepancy which could be ignored being inconsequential. Likewise it was observed that merely because Sarabjit Singh was not clear as to the exact number of blows that he had witnessed when he had entered the kotha, this was to be expected under the circumstances, considering the awful scene that he had come upon. The court also observed that as both the deceased had perhaps been immobilized by the very severe attack made on them, it would perhaps have not been possible for them to put up any resistance, more so as both the deceased were women, one a young girl and the other an old woman and the accused was a young man of 26 years of age. The court also held that the recovery of the danda, Exh. P1 and the gandasi, Exh.P2, the alleged murder weapons at the instance of the accused stood proved, and the two sets of injuries that had been found on him when he had been subjected to a medical examination on 10.8.2002 was again a corroborative circumstance. The Court found further corroboration from the fact that the finger prints lifted from the mirror lying in the room where the murders had been committed, had been found to be those of the accused. The defence version given by the accused was rejected by observing that no attempt had been made by Surjit Singh (DW2), the real brother of the accused to approach the higher authorities to complain that his brother had been involved in a false case or the plea of alibi. The court accordingly held the case against the accused as proved beyond doubt vide its judgment dated 21.10.2003. The c