LexBATHULA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO & ORS. versus STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 829 "' )' BATHULA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO & ORS. A v. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2006) APRIL 22, 2008 B , -..; [P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r. w. s. 149 ands. 429- Conviction under, based on evidence of eye witnesses - High Court disbelieved testimony of PW-3 in regard to presence of A-4 to c A-9 at scene of occurrence and their participation in commission of crime and granted benefit of doubt- Conviction of appellants (A-1, A-2, A-10 to A-12), however upheld relying upon same set of evidence of PW-3 - Challenged on the ground that PW-3 was interested witness and thus framed D appellants in false case - Held: Presence of PW-3 on scene J; of occurrence fully established by evidence of PW-1 and PW- 2 and his name also mentioned as eye witness in FIR which was lodged by PW 1 immediately after incident of murder - Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would E not ruin it from the beginning to the end - Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars - High Court found portion of evidence of PW-3 deficient in regard to involvement of A-4 to A-9 and granted them benefit of doubt -Although F some portion of the evidence was found to be deficient, residue -1. was sufficient to prove guilt of appellants - High Court rightly maintained conviction of appellants - Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" - Evidence. Evidence: G Related witness - Testimony of- Evidentiary value of- -~ Held: Relationship of witnesses cannot be sole basis to discard or disbelieve their evidence if it is otherwise found to be believable and trustworthy. 829 H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. ,, A Criminal trial: Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate - Effect f on prosecution case. Prosecution case was that deceased no.1 was the sarpanch of the village. One 'T' approached him regarding B the land dispute with A-6. He asked the parties to talk to elders of the village. A-6 then bore grudge against .. . deceased no.1. On the day of occurrence, at 6.30 p.m., A-6 found his son dead and believed that 'T' was responsible for same. c On the same day at 7.30 p.m., PW-1 wife of deceased no.1 was standing in the verandah of her house, while deceased Nos.1 and 2 were talking to PW-2 and PW-3, both friends of deceased no.1 in front of house of deceased no.1 when they noticed group of men armed D with dangerous weapons moving towards the house of deceased no.1. Deceased no.1 and his wife PW-1 rushed inside the house and bolted its door from inside. All the twelve accused trespassed the house and assaulted deceased E nos.1and2 resulting in death. Charges were framed under s.148 IPC against A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-12 and under s.429 IPC against A-6, A-10 to A-12 and under s.302 r.w. s.149 IPC against A-4, A-5 A-7 to A-9. F Sessions Judge found accused guilty of these offences and accordingly convicted them. .l. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-1, A-2, A-10, A-11 and A-12 by the trial court. The High Court, however, acquitted A-4, A-5, A-6, G A-7, A-8 and A-9 of all the charges levelled against them. A-1, A-2, A-10, A-11 and A-12 are appellants before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 'I- - H HELD: 1. There was a delay of about 16 hours in BATHULA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO & ORS. v. STATE 831 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ~ sending the FIR to the Magistrate, but the explanation as A recorded by the trial court was that the majority of the. police personnel were deputed in village for maintaining the law and order situation which was too tense in view of the murder of three men of the village on the same evening. There is no cogent and convincing reason for B ... ...., doubting the correctness and truthfulness of the FIR which was promptly lodged in the Police Station at 9:00 p.m. in relation to the murder of deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 at about 7:30 p.m. The Investigating Officer in cross-examination denied the suggestion of the c defence that the statement of PW1 (EX P1) was brought into existence around 2:35 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. on the next day, i.e. 19.07.1996, after a good deal of consultations and confabulations with the leaders of rival group of the accused and particularly after observing the injuries on D the dead body of deceased No. 1. He catego
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.