BUR SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 13-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 334 
J' 
!. 
A 
BUR SINGH AND ANR. 
r·,~ 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 13, 2008 
> 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
+-
.. Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r. w. s. 34.:.. Conviction under, by 
c trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: 
On facts, correct- Evidence of witnesses established the pros-
' ecution case. 
Evidence: Related witness - Testimony of - Evidentiary 
value of - Held: Can be relied upon unless ·allegation of 
D interestedness is established. 
Doctrines/Principles: of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' 
~ 
- Applicability of 
Pros·ecutipn case was that a day prior to incident, 
t 
E accused-appellant no.1 gave beating to a boy to which 
deceased objected. The accused was annoyed with him 
and challenged to teach him a lesson. The next day at 
6.00 A.M.; deceased was going towards his well alongwith 
his son, complainant. The accused persons came there 
F and started inflicting several blows to hir:n with their re-
j 
spective weapons. The deceased succumbed to injuries. 
The complainant went to the police ~tation, but ASI met 
~ 
him on the way and he recorded statement of complain-
ant which was completed at 7 .30 AM on the basis of which 
G FIRwas registered at 8.30 AM. The distance of police sta-
tion was 4 Kms. from the place of occurrence. The lllaqa 
Magistrate received the FIR at 9 A.M. 
{ 
,~ • 
Accused persons were arrested and weapons were 
recovered in pursuance of their disclosure statements. 
H 
334 
BUR SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
335 
Y, 
The trial Court found the evidence of eye witnesses PW-2 
A 
\ 
and 3 to be cogent and credible and recorded conviction 
of appellants under s.302 r.w. s.34 IPC. High Court upheld 
the conviction. Hence the instant appeal. 
Appellants contended that the evidence of PW-2 and B 
3 cannot be believed and their presence at the spot was 
highly improbable; that they were interested witnesses 
·"' 
~~ 
and their evidence cannot be relied upon; that the pres-
~ 
ence of semi-digested food showed that the occurrence 
could not have taken place in the morning as claimed by 
the prosecution; that in the FIR and the application made c 
for postmortem, the investigating officer had not staled 
that the injuries on the person of the deceased were 
caused by sharp weapon; that evidence tendered by PW-
3 was not accepted and thu$ would throw out the entire D 
prosecution case and the principle of "fa/sus in uno falsus 
-:\' 
in omnibus" was applicable. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Merely because the eye-witnesses are tam-
E 
ily members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. 
When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has 
to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of 
the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused 
cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is oth-
F 
.... 
erwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to 
·1 
affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that 
a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make alle-
gations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be 
laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the G 
court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence 
,,...,, 
fo find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground 
that the witness being a close relative and consequently 
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has 
no substance. [Paras 6, 9] [342-C-D-E; 343-D] 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) 
SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 
SCC 698 Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 
614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U. P AIR (1965) SC 202; State 
of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State 
B of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. 
State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan Kbandare 
and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404; Salim 
Saheb v. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699 - relied on. 
2.1 The plea to apply the principle of "falsus in uno 
C falsus in omnibus" is untenable. Falsity of particular mate-
rial witness or material particular would not ruin it from 
the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno fa/sus in 
omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses 
cannot be branded as liars. It is merely a rule of caution. 
D All that it amounts to

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