JAYASEELAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 11-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 3 S.C.R. 200 
.. 
A 
JAYASEELAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2002) 
B 
FEBRUARY 11, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
... 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Acquittal by trial Court, set 
c aside by High Court - Conviction challenged - Held: High 
Court rightly interfered with the order of trial Court - There was 
no delay in lodging FIR as rightly noted by High Court in view 
of factual scenario highlighted - Additionally injuries on 
accused were of minor nature and superficial -- Principle of 
• 
D 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' would not be applicable. 
Trial court directed acquittal of the two accused on 
the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR and 
that the injury on the accused was not explained. High 
E court did not accept the reasoning of trial court and 
imposed life imprisonment after recording that accused 
was guilty of offence punishable under s.302 IPC. 
In appeal to this court, appellant-accused contended 
, 
that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; the 
F injuries on the appellant were not explained and also 
prayer was made to apply the principle of 'falsus in uno 
falsus in omnibus'. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. High Court rightly interfered with the 
judgment of trial Court. [Para 6] [208-D] 
t 
2. There was no delay in lodging the FIR as rightly 
noted by the High Court in view of the factual scenario 
H 
200 
JAYASEELAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
201 
... _ 
highlighted. Additionally, the injuries on the accused 
A 
were of very minor nature and superficial. [Paras 4 and 
6] [206-C] 
3.1. The prayer to apply the principle of "falsus in uno 
fa/sus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) 
B 
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, his conviction can be maintained. 
Falsity of material particular would not ruin it from the 
beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in c 
omnibus" has no application in India and the witness or 
witnesses cannot be branded as liar(s). It is merely a rule 
of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases 
testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be 
--
} 
disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question 
, 
of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given 
D 
set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a 
mandatory rule of evidence.' [Para 5] [206-D] 
Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR (1957) SC 
366 and Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 
E 
1956 SC 460, relied on. 
,,. 
3.2. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those 
" 
which are due to normal errors of observation, normal 
... 
errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental 
F 
. 
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of 
--
occurrence and those are always there however honest 
and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepanci 
s are those which are not normal, and not expected of a n 
rmal person. Courts have to label the category to which 
G 
a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal 
discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's 
case, material discrepancies do so. [Para 5] [207-H; 208-
A] 
Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
.>-
A Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 751; Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State 
of Bihar AIR (1965) SC 277; Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh AIR (1954) SC 15; Ba/aka Singh and Ors. v. The 
State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511; State of Rajasthan v. Smt 
Ka/ki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752; Krishna Machi and Ors. v. 
B State of Bihar etc. (2002) 6 SCC 81; Sucha Singh v. State of 
Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643; Zahira H. Sheikh v. State 
0 f 
Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158; Ram Udgar Singh v. State of 
Bihar (2004)10 SCC 443; Gorle S. Naidu v. State of Andhra 
Pradesh (2003)12 SCC 449; Gubbala Venugopalswamy v. 
c State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 10 SCC 120; Syed Ibrahim 
v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 sec 601, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR (1957) SC 366 
relied on 
Para 5 
D 
AIR 1956 SC 460 
relied on 
Para 5 
(1972) 3 sec 151 
relied on 
Para 5 
AIR (1965) SC 277 
relied on 
Para 5 
E 
AIR (1954) SC 15 
relied on 
Para 5 
(1975) 4 sec 511 
relied on 
Para 5 
"' 
(1981) 2 sec 752 
relied on 
Para 5 
F 
(2002) 6 sec 81 
relied on 
Para 5 
-
(2003) 1 sec 643 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2004) 4 sec 158 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2004)1 o se

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