NISAR ALI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 14-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
657 
before, the point is 
really concluded by decisions of 
the highest 
tribunal, · decisions 
which correctly lay 
down the law. 
The result therefore is that these peti-
tions are devoitl of all merit and must be dismissed. 
Petitions dismissed. 
NISAR ALI 
v. 
THE ST ATE OF JJTT AR PRADESH 
(BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA and J. L. KAPUR 
First information repo1·t-Repon made by accused-Use of-
Burden of proof in criminal ,·ases-Witness disbelieved as to part of 
his testimony...:... Whether should be 1·ejected in tote>. 
A first information 
report is not a substantive 
piece of 
evidence and can onlv be used to corroborate the statement of the 
maker under s. 157 ~£ the Evidence ·Act or ID contradict it under 
s. 145 of that Act. 
It ·cannot be used as evidence against the 
maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corro-
borate or contradict other witnesses. 
It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the 
innocence of an accused person is presumed till otherwise proved. 
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused 
subject to any statutory exception. 
· 
The ma~im falsus in uno, falms in omnibus has 
not received 
general 
acceptance in different · jurisdictions in India, nor has it 
come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule 
of caution. 
All that it amounts to is tha~ in such cases the testi-
mony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. 
The doctrine merely invoh-es the question of weight of evidence 
which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but ·it is 
not a mandatory rule of e,·idencc. 
CtttMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JultlsDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 150 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and 
order dated October 18, 1955, of the 
Allahabad 
High 
Court in 
Government Appeal No. 60•of 1953 arising 
out of the 
judgment and order dated July 8, 1952, of 
the Court of 
Sessions Judge at Bareilly in 
Criminal. 
Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1952. 
Daul•t Ram Prem and P. C. Agarwa/a, for the 
appellant. 
5-79 S. C. India/59 
1957 
Baij Nath Prasad 
Tripalhi 
v. 
Tht State of Bhopal 
S. ti. Dass J. 
1957 
F1bruary 14. 
1957 
Nii"ar Ali 
v 
Tiu Sl6teof 
Uttar Prad~sh 
Ka;.r J. 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f1957] 
Cyan Clzand Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respon-
dtnt. 
1957. February 14. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KAPUR /.-The appellant 
along 
with one Qudrat 
Ullah was tried for the 
murder on one Sabir. 
The 
latter was tried under s. 302 read with s. 114 of the 
Indian Penal Code for ahetment, and the former under 
s. 302 I.P .C. 
Both the accused were acquitted by the 
learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly. But the 
State took 
an appeal to the 
Allahabad 
High 
Court against the 
appellant only and the 
judgment of acquittal 
in his 
case was reversed and 
he was convicted under s. 302 
l.P.C. and sentenced 
to 
'transportation 
for 
life'. 
Against the judgment of the High Court the appellant 
has brought this appeal hy Special Leave. 
The facts which have given rise to the appeal arc that 
Sabir was murdered on the 11th May, 1951, at about 
6-30 p.m. 
The First Information 
Report was made by 
Qudrat Ullah the other accused at 6-45 p.m. the same 
day, i.e., within about 15 minutes of the occurrence. 
The pcosccution case was shat there was an exchange of 
abuses between the deceased and the appellant 
near 
the shop of the 
First Informant, 
Qudrat Ullah. 
The 
cause of the quarrei was that on the evening of 
the 
occurrence while Qudrat Ullah was sitting in his shop 
and the deceased was sitting just' below 
the shop, the 
appellant came out of his 'house an<l on seeing him, the 
deceased 
asked him as to why he 
was in 
such a 
"dishevelhl condition", which 
annoyed 
the appc11ant 
and gave rise to an 
exchange of abuses. 
On hearinl'l 
this noise, the prosecution witnesse< arrived at the spot 
and saw the appellant and the deceased grappling with 
each 
othe1". 
The appellant 
is 
stated to have asked 
Qudrat Ullah to hand over a knife to him which Qudrat 
Ullah did ; this 
knife is 
Ex. 'II', 
with 
which the 
appellant stabbed the deceased and then fled away. As 
a result of the injuries the deceased fell down in front 
of Qudrat Ullah's shop ; son1e 
witnesses 
have 
stated 
that he fell on the wooden plank in front of the shop. 
Qudrat Ullah picked 
up the knife 
which 
had been 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
659 
dropped by 
the appellant, put 

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