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

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 338 
' 
, 
A 
MANI@ UDATTU MAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 382-384 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Accused forming 
c unlawful assembly - and armed with dangerous weapons 
inflicted fatal injuries to deceased - Previous enmity between 
parties - Accused also threatened family members of 
deceased - Incident witnessed by mother of deceased -
Conviction uls. 302 by courts below on basis of evidence of 
"' 
D 
mother even though other prosecution witnesses resiled from 
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. 
Criminal law- Duty of court- To separate grain from chaff 
- Administration of justice. 
-r 
Evidence -
Normal discrepancies and material 
discrepancies - Distinction between. 
F 
Prosecution case was that accused persons were 
implicated in the murder case of B-son of PW1 and were 
acquitted. Thereafter, accused persons armed with 
knives came to the house of PW1 and threatened to kill 
P, other son of PW-1. Next day accused came to the 
• 
...._ 
G 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 
338 
t 
MANI @UDATTU MAN & ORS. v. STATE REP. BY 
339 
___.... 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Y' 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
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 
should go and hide himself and on the next day, in the B 
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 A 1 cut the deceased 
on his head with the Knife and A3, A4, AG, AS, A7 cut P c 
on the shoulder and other parts of the body and AS 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, 
D 
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. E 
[Para 5) [345-E-H; 346-A-B] 
1.2. Merely because the accused were investigated 
in the case of B, 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 
F 
the instant case was implicated there also and were 
acquitted. PW1 also stated that 5-6 months after the death 
of B 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 G 
children, 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 
H 
accused were set free in the case of B, PW1 with the 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
.._
A 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 cannot be disregarded. When the evidence of the 
interested witnesses is corroborated by the medical 
B evidence, then the entire evidence of the interested 
witnesses ought not be rejected on that ground. [Para 6] 
[346-C-H; 347-A] 
Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 
-
366; Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 
c SC 460; Sohrab slo Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of 
Madhya Pradesh 1972 (3) SCC 751; Ugar Ahfr and Ors. v. 
The State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277; Zwinglee Ariel v. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.