LexDALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 1026 A DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2008) B MAY 15, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 148 - Conviction under . .../Prosecution case that nephew killing his uncle over prop- c --e,rty dispute - Other co-accused also caused injuries to de- D E F G ceased - Incident witnessed by grandfather and he identified his grandson - Conviction of nephew, however, acquittal of other co-accused by courts below - Held: Grandfather identi- fied the accused from his voice at dark night - His evidence cannot be discarded, though he did not identify other assail- ants - Duty of Court is to separate grain from chaff - Where chaff can be separated from grain, the Court can convict ac- cused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons - Thus, order of conviction upheld. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.9 - Identification of accused - Dark night -::- Ocular identification - Possibility of -:- Held: Is possible if person is acquainted and closely related to another from manner of speech, gait and voice identification - On facts, grand father of accused recognized the accused from his voice in a dark night. Maxims - Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - Meaning and applicability in India - Stated. Evidence - Normal discrepancies and material discrep- ancies - Difference between. According to the prosecution case, DS is nephew of RP. RP was cultivating land of his father-SR, who is the grandfather of DS. On account of the same OS was on H 1026 l ' +- i --; .., ~· .,.. DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF 1027 HARYANA ,. ' ' inimical terms with RP. On the fateful day, during night A --t- hours, when RP had gone to his field with SR, 5-6 armed persons came there in a jeep. OS raised lalkara to RP that he should be taught a lesson for cultivating his grandfather's land. SR recognized the voice of OS and went towards the scene of occurrence. He saw that OS B and others were causing injuries to RP. SR raised alarm ¥ and all the assailants fled away. RP was taken to the hos- ~ pital and he succumbed to his injuries. Investigation was carried out. Trial court convicted and sentenced DS-ac- cused u/s.302 and 148 IPC. However, the other co-ac- c cused were acquitted. OS filed appeal on the ground that PW-8 had undergone eye operation about two years prior to the date of occurrence and in the dark night there was no scope of identification. High Court holding that the identification by PW8 was possible, upheld the convic- D " tion. Hence the present appeal. ; Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. With regard to the acquittal of the co-ac- cused and its effect on prosecution version, courts be- E low noted the fact that the only person named was PW8 who was the grand father of the present appellant. He did not identify the co-accused person i.e. the other assail- ants. PW8 had categorically stated that he did not recog- nize other assailants, and though he knew other assail- ants, he did not know their names and, therefore, had not F given their names. He had categorically also stated that from the voice of accused who raised the lalkara he rec- ognized the assailant as his grandson. In a dark night ocular identification may be difficult in some cases but if a person is acquainted and closely related to another, from G -t the manner of speech, gait and voice identification is pos- sible. Therefore, there is nothing to discard the evidence of PW8 so far as his claim to have recognized the appel- lant is concerned. [Para 6 and 7] [1034-C,E,F,G, 1035-A] H 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. A Anwar Hussain v. The State of UP and Anr. AIR 1981 -.+ "" SC 2073 - relied on. 1.2. It is emphatically urged that the evidence is par- tisan, lacks cogency and credibility. Acquittal of other ac- cused persons is the foundation for such plea. [Para 8] B [1035-B] 1.3. Coming to applicability of the principle of fa/sus in uno falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt c of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large num- ber of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other per- sons are accused, the Court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from 0 chaff. Where chaff ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.