KALEGURA PADMA RAO AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 19-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KALEGURA PADMA RAO AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
FEBRUARY 19, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
ss.299, 300, 302 and 304-1-Deceased beaten up indiscriminately, 
resulting in his death-Conviction of accused under s.3021149-ln the light C 
of evidence and principles laid down in ss.299 and 300, conviction of 
accused altered to s.304-1. 
Evidence: 
Related witness-Evidence-Reliability of-Held, relationship not a D 
factor to affect credibility of witness 
Major portion of evidence found deficient-Conviction still 
maintainable, if residual evidence sufficient to prove guilt of accused-
Doctrine of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no applicability in India- E 
Doctrines. 
Prosecution case was that when the deceased had requested A-1, A-2 to 
.travel in his Auto as per the serial number, they refused and started beating 
him. The next day, deceased and his wife PW-1 informed Sarpanch about the 
incident. A-1 admitted his guilt in the presence of PWs 9 and 10. In the F 
evening, A-1 to A-16 armed with sticks, iron rods and axes, went to the house 
of deceased and attacked him. Deceased was beaten up indiscriminately. When 
his father PW-2 came to rescue him, he was also beaten up. Deceased and 
PW-2 were taken to hospital where deceased succumbed to the injuries. 
Trial Court convicted the accused persons for offences punishable under G 
ss.148, 448 r.w. s.149, 302/149, 324/149 IPC. On appeal, the High Court 
confirmed the conviction of appellants and A-7 to 9, 12 and 13. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the conviction is based 
781 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A primarily on the evidence of witnesses who were related to the deceased and 
)-
further the accusations do not make out the case relatable to s.302 IPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a 
B witness. A relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations 
against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a 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 is cogent and credible. (Para Sf 
r 
[787-A] 
c 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli 
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar 
v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, referred to. 
1.2. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently 
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. 
D [Para II ( (787-F( 
Masalti and Ors. v. Stale of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. 
Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002( 3 
i. 
sec 76, referred to. 
E 
· 2.1. Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of 
evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw 
out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of 
"falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). 
This plea is clearly untenable. [Para 131 [788-E) 
F 
2.2. 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. It is 
the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated 
from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding 
the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other 
G accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular 
would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus 
in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded 
I.. 
as liar. 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'. It is merely a rule of caution. [Para 13) 
H 
[788-F, G; 789-AI 
7 
,, 
_J 
KALEGURA PADMA RAO•·. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
783 
Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957) SC 366; Sucha A 
Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 6 JT SC 348 and Jsrar v. State of 
UP., 12005) 9 SCC 616, relied on. 
3.1. In the scheme oflPC, culpable homicide is the genus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.