LexGANESH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2008] 12 S.C.R. 362 GANESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.586 of 2007) AUGUST 20, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 307 rlw s.149 ands. 302-rl w s. 149 - Prosecution under - Of twenty five accused - Enmity between parties - Incident seen by eye-witnesses - Trial court convicting 6 accused under all the provisions except uls 302 rlw s. 149 - Rest of the accused acquitted - D High Court acquitting one of the convicted accused and holding that rest of the five accused were also liable to be punished u/s 302 rlw s.149 - On appeal, held: Order of High Court is justified - Evidence of eye-witnesses is trustworthy - Acquittal of large number of accused cannot be a ground E to discard the evidence of trustworthy witnesses - When a port.ion of prosecution evidence is discarded, it is open to court to differentiate between acquitted and convicted accused - Rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is merely a rule of caution. F Twenty five persons including the appellants- accused were prosecuted for offences u/ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 307 r/w s.149 and u/s. 302 r/w s.149 IPC. According to prosecution, strained relations between the accused and the complainant party resulted in assault G on the deceased and his sons. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after 5 days of the assault. Trial Court relying on the evidence of eye-witnesses convicted 6 accused persons for all the offences they H were charged, except uls 302 r/w s.149 IPC. 362 . --t· ,. GANESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 363 :"' 1- State filed appeal before High Court questioning A acquittal of the accused u/s 302 r/w s.149 IPC. The convicted accused also filed appeals questioning their conviction. High Court held that five out of the six accused were liable to be punished u/s 302 r/w s.149 IPC. However, one of the appealing accused was B ~ acquitted. Hence the present appeals. 1 Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Though large number of co-accused have been acquitted, that cannot be a ground to discard the c evidence of trustworthy witnesses. As a rule of universal application, it cannot be said that when a portion of the prosecution evidence is discarded as unworthy of credence, there cannot be any conviction. It is always open to the court to differentiate between an accused D who has been convicted and those who have been .. acquitted. The maxim 'falsus in uno, fa/sus in omnibus' is merely a rule of caution. An attempt has to be made to ~ separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. When the prosecution is able to establish its case by E acceptable evidence, though in part, the accused can be convicted even if the co-accused have been acquitted on the ground that the evidence led was not sufficient to fasten guilt on them. But where the position is such that the evidence is totally unreliable, and it will be impossible to separate the truth from falsehood to an F --1· extent that they are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and background against which they are made, conviction G -.).:' cannot be made. [Paras 10, 11] [368,F-H; 369,A-D] Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 202; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 460 and Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643 - relied on. H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A 2. The doctor's evidence to the effect that the death was not due to any injury but it was due to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure as a result of tetanus, is by way of hypothetical answer. The evidence of PW-2, PW- 7 and PW-3 clearly established the role played by the B accused persons and PW-3 was the injured witness. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 7 and 14 inspire confidence and, therefore, the trial Court and the High Court had rightly convicted the appellants. So far as acquittal of A- 1 is concerned, the High Court has given ample reasoning c for setting aside his conviction and affirming the conviction of other accused persons. [Para 12] [369, D-G] D Case Law Reference AIR 1965 SC 202 AIR 1956 SC 460 2003 (7) sec 643 Relied on Para 9 Relied on Para 11 Relied on Para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2007 E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.