NARAIN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 04-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARAIN 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 4, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Section 304 Part I-Prosecution of accused along 
with seven other accused for causing death of one and injuries to others-
C Discrepancies in the versions of informant and that of the eye-witnesses-Plea 
of self defence by accused-Assault by deceased on the accused established-
Conviction of one accused and acquittal of the seven other accused by trial 
court-Finding of trial court affirmed by High Court-On appeal, held: 
Conviction not justified as prosecution case not established-Conclusion 
regarding other accused persons are equally applicable to the convicted 
D accused 
Criminal Trial: 
"Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "-Applicability of-Conviction relying 
on evidence on which co-accused acquitted-Held: Conviction of accused can 
E be based on such evidence even if co-accused acquitted on the same evidence 
if prosecution case established by acceptable evidence-But where evidence 
is totally unreliable and truth and falsehood therein are inextricably mixed up, 
and in the process of its separation a new case is reconstructed, conviction 
cannot be made. 
F 
Eight persons, including appellant-accused faced trial for offences 
punishable u/ss 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 450 IPC for 
having caused death of one person and causing injuries to others. 
According to prosecution case, occurrence took place at 3 places. 
Ther.e was discrepancy in the statement of the informant and in the FIR 
G version lodged by him. His dying declaration was recorded by Nayab 
Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, but he denied to have made the same. 
The injured eye-witnesses had given varying versions of the occurrence. 
Their evidence as regards the places of assault was also discrepant and 
inconsistent. An eye-witness (PW-13) admitted in his cross-examination 
H 
82 
/ 
( 
NARAIN v. ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
83 
that deceased had first assaulted the appellant-accused on his head with A 
lathi. Accused persons had pleaded innocence and had taken a definite 
stand that the injured eye-witnesses had assaulted them and they had acted 
in exercise of right of private defence. 
Trial Court acquitted seven accused. However appellant-accused was 
convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC, rejecting the plea of self-defence and holding B 
that it was probable that he would have acted in retaliation. The findings 
of trial court were confirmed by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that it was not justified 
to convict the appellant on the evidence, which was found to be unreliable C 
for the acquitted accused. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The genesis of the incident, the place of incident and the 
manner in which the incident took place was found .not to have been D 
established by cogent and credible prosecution evidence. Therefore, on the 
peculiar facts of the case and the nature of evidence tendered by the 
prosecution there is no scope for taking a different view so far as the 
appellant is concerned and treat the case against him alone to have been 
substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion arrived at in 
respect of other accused persons were equally applicable so far as the E 
appellant, is concerned. Hence the conviction of the appellant is set aside. 
187-F-Hl 
2. As a rule of universal application it cannot be said that when a 
portion of the prosecution evidence is discarded as unworthy of credence, 
there cannot be any conviction. It is always open to the Court to F 
differentiate be.tween an accused who has been convicted and those who 
have been acquitted. The maxim "Falsus in unofalsus in nmnibus" is merely 
a rule of caution. When the prosecution is able to establish its case by 
acceptable evidence, though in part, the accused can be convicted even if 
the co-accused have bl!en acquitted on the ground that the evidence led G 
was not sufficient to fasten guilt on them. But where the position is such 
that the evidence is totally unreliable, and it will be impossible to separate 
truth from falsehood to an extent that they are inextricably mixed up, and 
in the process of separation an absolute new case has to be reconstructed . 
by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from H 
the context and background against which they are made, conviction 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12004) 2 S.C.R. 
A cannot be made. (86-C-F) 
Guru 

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