MANI @ UDATTU MAN & ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1210 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 1210 
MANI @ UDATTU MAN & ORS. 
v 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 382-384 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Accused forming 
unlawful assembly - and armed with. dangerous weapons 
C inflicted fatat injuries to deceased - Previous enmity between 
parties - Accused also threatened family members of 
deceased - Incident witnessed by mother of deceased -
Conviction u/s. 302 by courts below on basis of evidence of 
mother even though other prosecution witnesses resiled from 
D their statement - Justification of - Held: Justified - Evidence 
of mother was trustworthy, and rightly acted upon - It cannot 
be said that the mother falsely implicated the accused. 
Maxims - Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - Meaning of 
E - Applicability in India - Stated. 
F 
Criminal law - Duty of court -
To separate grain from 
chaff - Administration of justice. 
Evidence -
Normal discrepancies and material 
discrepancies - Distinction between. 
Prosecution case was that accused persons were 
implicated in the murder case of B-son of PW1 and were 
acquitted. Thereafter, acc'used persons armed with knives 
came to the house of PW1 and threatened to kill P, other 
G son of PW".'1. Next day accused came to the house of PW-
. 1, chased ,,P. and killed him. PW-1 and PW-2-daughter-in-
law, followed the accused'. They witnessed the incident. 
The courts below convicted all the accused except 8th 
accused u/s. 302 IPC. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
1210 
~ 
.J 
.. 
. 
-: 
' 
/ 
MANI @ UDATTU MAN & ORS. V. STATE REP. BY 
1211 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, in the examination of 
PW1, it has been stated that, in the morning the accused 
armed with knives had come and threatened to kill P and 
that is the night when P came. She told him that he shouid 
go and hide himself. On the next day, in the morning, the 
accused armed with knives came and on seeing them P 
ran and accused followed him and PW1 alongwith her 
daughter-in-law PW2 followed and after running for some 
distance, A2 and A1 cut the deceased on his head with 
the knife and A3, A4, AG, A5, A7 cut P on the shoulder and 
other parts of the body and AB was holding P by his legs 
and these facts appear to corroborate the contents of the 
complaint lodged by PW1 in the Police Station. The 
evidence of PW1 in the cross examination when compared 
with the complaint, corroborates it and strengthens the 
prosecution version. On examining complaint it is evident 
that the evidence of PW1 that all the accused are known 
to her and that all the accused were armed with the M01 
series knives. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of 
PW1 being trustworthy and believable has been rightly 
acted upon. [Para 5] [1217-H; 1218-A-E] 
1.2. Merely because the accused were investigated 
in the case of 8, the evidence of PW1 cannot be 
disregarded. It is seen from the evidence of PW1 that 
PW1 's other son B had been killed and the accused in 
the instant case was implicated there also and were 
acquitted. PW1 also stated that S-6 months after the death 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
of 8 her son P was killed. On considering the evidence of 
PW1 that she knew the accused from their childhood and 
that due to the enmity of the accused with her children, G 
they killed her sons and that on 8.3.2001 the accused 
armed with knives came to her house and threatened to 
kill P and that she informed this to P and that the next 
day, the accused came to her house, chased P and killed 
her, it cannot be said that just because the accused were H 
1212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
set free in the case of B, PW1 with the ~wrong intention 
~ 
implicated the .accused in the instant case. Just because 
the eye witness to the incident is related to the deceased, 
the evidence of the said eye witness c-annot be 
' 
disregarded. When the evidence of the interested 
B 'Witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence, then 
the entire evidence of the interested witnesses ought not 
be rejected on that ground. [Para 6] [1218-G-H; 1219-A-D] 
Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366; 
~ 
c 
Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 
460; Sohrab s/o Beli Nayata and Anr. V. The State of Madhya 
Pradesh 1972 (3) SCC 751; Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of 
f 
Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277; Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya 

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