ILANGOVAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 02-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
ILANGOVAN
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 304 (Part II) and 324 – Prosecution u/ss. 302 and 324 –
Against four accused – For causing death of one person and for
causing injuries to two – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused
u/ss. 302 & 324, while acquitting the other accused – High Court,
in appeal of appellant-accused modified conviction u/s. 302 to one
u/s. 304 (Part II) on the ground that the case fell under Exception 4
to s. 300 IPC – Remaining judgment of trial Court was upheld –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The evidence against the
appellant-accused is consistent with the depositions in Court being
in line with the complaint and statements made before the police –
The appellant-accused has not been able to point out any infirmity
in the findings of High Court – Impugned order is upheld.
Criminal Trial:
Rule of parity – Convicted accused seeking parity with
acquitted co-accused – Held: There is no such principle of law that
requires automatic acquittal of an accused because of the acquittal
of the co-accused.
Evidence:
Related witness – Evidentiary value – Held: The testimony of
a related or interested witness can be taken into consideration with
the additional burden on the Court to carefully scrutinize such
evidence.
Maxims:
‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ – Nature and applicability of.
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1132
1132
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The testimony of a related or an interested
witness can be taken into consideration, with the additional burden
on the Court in such cases to carefully scrutinize such evidence.
As such, the mere plea that the testimonies of the witnesses in
the case should be disregarded because they were related,
without bringing to the attention of the Court any reason to
disbelieve the same, cannot be countenanced. [Para 7][1136-C-
D]
Sudhakar v. State (2018) 5 SCC 435 : [2018] 4 SCR
612 – relied on.
2. There is no such principle of law, that requires automatic
acquittal of an accused because of the acquittal of the co-accused.
The nature and quality of evidence against the appellant-accused
was distinct from that which was adduced against his co- accused.
The Trial Court noted that the other co-accused were the aunt
(accused No. 2), mother (accused No. 3) and grandfather (accused
No. 4) of the present appellant. The Court noted that accused
No. 4 was 70 years old, and could not even stand straight, let
alone presumed to have caused any injury to one of the witnesses.
Further, with respect to the actions attributed to accused Nos. 2
and 3, the Trial Court held that they appear to be exaggerations
and an after thought, as they were not even included in the
complaint. The Court ultimately held that apart from the fact that
accused Nos. 2 to 4 were present at the scene of the occurrence,
there was no concrete evidence in the depositions of the
eyewitnesses to indicate that they caused injuries to the
witnesses. When it comes to the appellant, the evidence against
him is consistent, with the depositions in Court being in line with
the complaint and statements made before the police. The
appellant is the main accused, who is stated to have attacked the
complainant and caused him injuries as well as hit the deceased
on her head with an iron rod, resulting in her death. The
allegations against the appellant are in line with the chargesheet,
the wound certificate regarding the complainant and the post
mortem report of the deceased. [Paras 8, 9 and 10][1137-A-E]
Yanob Sheikh v. State of West Bengal (2013) 6 SCC
428 : [2012] 13 SCR 1150 – relied on.
ILANGOVAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR
OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
3. It cannot be accepted that once the witnesses had been
disbelieved with respect to the co-accused, their testimonies with
respect to the present accused must also be discarded. The Indian
Courts have always been reluctant to apply the legal maxim “falsus
in uno, falsus in omnibus”. This maxim has not come to occupy
the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The
doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which
a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not
what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". The Trial
Court has given s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.