ARJUN AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ARJUN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RNASTHAN 
JULY 14, 1994 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860--Section 30'J.-Murdei-£nmity-Relation 
Witness-Acceptability of. 
C 
Eye witnesses--Four accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt-
Whether consistent evidence of eye witnesses is liable to be rejected since they 
have been disbelieved with regard to panicipation of four acquitted ac-
cused-Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus-Whether applicable. 
Constitution of India, 1950: An. 136--Appreciation of evidence-Con-
D cu"ent view taken by couns below-Nonnally not inteifered with. 
The four appellants were charged and tried alongwith four other 
accused under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. 
According to the prosecution, the four appellants were armed with 
E farsas and Ballam while the rest of the four acquitted accused were said 
to be armed with Iathies. All the accused assaulted the deceased with the 
weapons they were armed with. When the assault was opened on deceased 
he raised hue and cry inviting the attention of PW .3 PW 2, PW 4 and PW 
7, who had just come out of the Panchayat Bhawan after the meeting. They 
F 
all rushed to the place of occurrence to rescue the deceased. The victim 
died on the way while being taken to the hospital. 
The Trial Judge gave the benefit of doubt to four co-accused and 
acquitted them. The Trial Court found no case against any of the appel-
lants under Section 148. However, on evaluation, prosecution evidence was 
G found reliable and consistent so far as the four appellants were concerned 
and therefore, they were held guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. for murder 
of the deceased and each one of them was sentenced to undergo life 
imprisonment. The conviction and sentence had been further affirmed by 
the High Court. 
H 
In this appeal the appellants contended that there was long standing 
616 
•, 
ARJUN v. STA TE 
617 
enmity between the complainant and the appellants. It was also submitted A 
that prosecution witnesses were close relatives of the deceased victim; and 
that since the same eye witnesses have been disbelieved with regard to the 
participation of the four acquitted accused and, therefore, their evidence 
should not be accepted to convict the appellants also. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.L Enmity .is a double edged sword with can cut both ways. 
However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close 
relatives of the deceased victim or on enemical terms with the deceased 
involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see C 
that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any 
case, expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent 
persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to 
reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the 
accused persons were on enemical terms. Similarly the evidence could not 
be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the D 
deceased. In such a situation it only puts the court with the solemn duty 
to make a deeper probe and scrutinize the evidence with more than 
ordinary care which precaution' has already been taken by the two courts 
below while analysing and accepting the evidence. [621·D·E·F·G] 
1.2. The evidence of eye-witnesses finds corroborations from the medi· 
cal evidence. The injuries found on the person of the deceased tally with the 
ocular version of all these eye witnesses. In view of these facts and cir· 
cumstances there is no reason whatsoever to differ from the concurrent view 
taken by the two courts below as the evidence on the basis of which the 
conviction of these four appellants is founded is fully reliable and trust-war· 
thy and hence no other view is possible than the one already taken by the 
Trial Court and the High Court. Normally this Court does not appraise the 
evidence for itself under Article 136 of the Constitution. The c011clusion of 
High Court on question of fact on appreciation of evidence is considered to 
E 
F 
be final, yet this court has scrutinised the evidence to satisfy itself to see G 
whether there is any infirmity in the conclusions recorded by the High Court 
and there is no cause for any interference. (623-G·H; 624-A·B·C] 
1.3. The four acquitted accused were given benefit of doubt with 
regard to their participation in the incident on the ground that both in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.