GANGADHAR BEHERA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 10-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GANGADHAR BEHERA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF ORI SSA 
OCTOBER I 0, 2002 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Sections 141, 148, 149 and 302: 
Murder-Unlawful assembly-Conviciion-Jngredients of-Held. a 
member of the assembly if understood the object and unlawful acts ·likely to C 
be committed by it, then such member would be held liable as member of 
unlawful assembly-Proof of overt act is not necessary. 
Common object and commcn il'lention-Distinction between-Discussed 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Testimony of interested witnesses-reliance thereupon-Held, relationship 
does not affect credibility of the witnesses-Cou: 'to adopt a careful approach 
in such cases and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and 
credible. 
Maxim: 
'Falsus in uno-falsus in om1Jibus'-Meaning and applicability of 
D 
E 
According to prosecution, on the fateful day, there was a quarrel 
between the deceased and DWI in connection with construction of a shed F 
in a market. The deceased and PWs. were chased by the accused persons. 
Two of the accused (Appellant Nos. 7 & 10) dragged the deceased and 
others and assaulted them. When police came on the spot, these accused 
persons fled away. PWS, one of the eyewitnesses, lodged an FIR. 
Trial Court conducted trial of 21 accused persons and convicted 15 
of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 as well 
as Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. 
However, it acquitted remaining accused persons. Convicted accused 
unsuccessfully filed an appeal before High Court. On appeal, this Court 
183 
G 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A remitted the matter to the High Court to dispose it of by carefully 
analyzing the evidence. High Court reheard the matter and upheld 
conviction of 10 accused persons and acquitted other accused persons. 
Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the main eyewitnesses were 
B relatives ofihe deceased and belonged to the sam1e i;olitical party to which 
deceased belonged; that witnesses did not attribute any definite role to 
accused .persons and Section 149 was not applicable; that grounds on which 
some of the accused persons acquitted were also logically applicable to 
accused appellants; that other independent eyewitnesses were not 
C examined; and that there was discrepancy between evidence of 
eyewitnesses and medical evidence. 
·On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the evidence of 
eyewitnesses was clear, cogent and credible; that no foundation for false 
implication of accused was established; that non-examination of an 
D independent witness did riot dilute. the evidence of eyewitnesses; that the 
common intention to commit the crime was established; and that some of 
the accused were acquitted, did not render the evidence of eyewitnesses 
suspect.· 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a 
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual 
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has 
to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has 
to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it 
F 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. (191-E; 192-C( 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli 
G Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 119741 3 SCC 698; Vadive/11 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 
and Lehna v. State of Haryana, 120021 3 SCC 76, relied on. 
L2. In essence prayer for non-acceptance of evidence tendered by 
H some witnesses to throw out entire prosecution case is to apply the 
GANGA DHAR BEHERA v. STATE OF ORI SSA 
185 
principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in A 
everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of 
evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt 
of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal .-Of number of. other co-accused 
persons, his conviction can be maintained. Falsity of particular material 
witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. B 
This maxim has no application in I

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