1. Appeal against conviction for murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302, 120B, 34, and 307 of the IPC arising from a land dispute. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1771
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Sundresh, J.B.Pardiwala, JJ.
T.G.Krishnamurthy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2012
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Important Points
The judgment reaffirms that the principle of 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply in India. Courts must separate the truth from falsehood ('remove the chaff from the grain'), allowing partial reliance on witness testimony even if certain parts of their evidence are found unreliable.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder and Attempted Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 120B, 34, and Section 307 - Conviction under murder and attempt to murder - Appellants challenged a conviction confirmed by High Court. Court affirmed reliance on injured witnesses and upheld conviction for death of deceased No.1, dismissing appeal in absence of errors. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Witnesses’ testimony - The principle "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply; courts must discern credible evidence while pursuing truth. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a conviction regarding a dispute leading to assaults that resulted in two deaths. Appellants claimed errors in the High Court's partial reliance on the testimonies of injured witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The testimonies of the injured eye-witnesses were deemed credible, leading to affirmation of convictions for the first deceased and the injuries caused.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of witness testimony to different events and the interpretation of evidence regarding the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the High Court’s approach in separating the credibility of witnesses in relation to the deceased was valid, emphasizing the duty of courts to analyze evidence carefully.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Witnesses’ testimony - The principle "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply; courts must discern credible evidence while pursuing truth. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a conviction regarding a dispute leading to assaults that resulted in two deaths. Appellants claimed errors in the High Court's partial reliance on the testimonies of injured witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The testimonies of the injured eye-witnesses were deemed credible, leading to affirmation of convictions for the first deceased and the injuries caused.
Issues: The main issues were the applicability of witness testimony to different events and the interpretation of evidence regarding the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the High Court’s approach in separating the credibility of witnesses in relation to the deceased was valid, emphasizing the duty of courts to analyze evidence carefully.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, AOR, Mr.Manendra Pal Gupta
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Aman Mohit Hingorani, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, AOR, Mr.Manendra Pal Gupta
Table of Contents
2. Whether partial reliance on injured eye-witness testimony is permissible if the same testimony is found unreliable regarding one of the multiple charges. (Para 6 )
3. The court found that injured eye-witnesses' testimony regarding one victim and their own injuries remains valid even if unreliable regarding another victim. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. The principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in India; courts must separate reliable evidence from unreliable portions of testimony. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; bail bonds cancelled and appellants ordered into custody to serve the remainder of their sentences. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to Indian courts?
No, the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in Indian courts. It is the duty of the court to separate the reliable evidence from the unreliable portions in the pursuit of truth. (Para 7 )
7. Can a court partially rely on the testimony of an injured eye-witness?
Yes. If injured eye-witnesses are found to be reliable regarding certain events—such as the death of one victim and their own injuries—their testimony can be used for those convictions even if it is deemed unreliable regarding other charges. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Is a First Information Report (FIR) required to contain graphic details of a crime?
No, an FIR is a document that merely sets the criminal law into motion and brings to notice that an offence has been committed; it is not expected to furnish graphic details. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. The present appeal has been preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to overturn the conviction rendered by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , (for short, ‘IPC') and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a prior dispute between PW1 and the first appellant regarding the possession and cultivation of the tank bed. On the fateful day all the accused persons numbering 8, armed with deadly weapons had assaulted PW1, PW27 and PW28 and the two deceased persons. All of them were taken to the hospital wherein the deceased Nos.1 and 2 succumbed to the injuries.
3. PW1 being the injured eye-witness, along with PW27 and PW28, is the author of the first information report. These three witnesses suffered fractures. PW1 has named all the appellants in the first information report.
4. In the complaint registered, the occurrence having taken place in two different places was not mentioned. Before the Court the prosecution took a stand that the deceased No.1 was attacked in a different place along with PW1, PW27 and PW28 and thereafter the deceased No.2 was attacked in another place. The Trial Court held that the FIR being a document which merely sets the criminal law into motion and brings to notice that the offence has been committed is not expected to furnish graphic details. Accordingly, all the accused persons were convicted.
5. On appeal, the High Court while acquitting the other accused persons convicted the appellants inter alia holding that the evidence of PW1, PW27 and PW28 cannot be applied to the death of deceased No.2 and there is no reference even in the first information report to the presence of the other accused. However, taking note of the fact that these witnesses are injured eye-witnesses, conviction was rendered for the death of the deceased No.1 and for the injuries caused to the witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has committed an error in placing partial reliance upon the evidence of PW1, PW27 and PW28, having been found that their testimony cannot be relied upon for the charge pertaining to the death of the deceased No.2, the same ought to have been applied for the other offences as well.
7. The principle governing "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has got no application to the courts in India. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth. As rightly held by the High Court PW1, PW27 and PW28 are the injured eyewitnesses. They were attacked along with deceased No.1. The reasoning adopted for the acquittal of the accused qua the death of deceased No.2 cannot be imported to that of the first accused and the injuries caused to the aforesaid three witnesses. Thus, we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the High Court.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
9. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. The appellants, if not on bail, shall be taken into custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.
