LexPREM SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 7 S.C. R. 1142
A
PREM SINGH & ORS.
.-
v
STATE OF HARYANA
Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2009
B
MAY 06, 2009
(S.B. SINHA AND DR.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ)
PENAL CODE, 1860 :
s. 302134 - Conviction - Non-mentioning of s. 34 in
~·
c concluding portion of Judgment -Effect of - Conviction of 5
. accused by trial court uls 3021149 - High Court acquitting three
of them and affirming the judgment as regards the remaining
two - Held : Acquittal of three of the accused would not mean
that no case of common intention has been made out against
D the remaining two - It has not been established that they were
prejudiced by non-mentioning of s. 34 in the concluding portion
of judgment of High Court - A judgment is not to be read as a
statute - It must be read reasonably and in its entirety -
- Judgment - Interpretation of.
E
EVIDENCE:
Conviction by trial court uls 3021149 /PC of 5 accused -
Acquittal by High Court of three of them - Plea that there being
· discrepancies in evidences of PWs., judgment of High Court
...
could not be sustained - Held: Both the trial court and the
F High Court did not find any materiaf discrepancy in depositions
of eye-witnesses - It is not a case where testimonies of eye-
witnesses have been totally disbelieved - Doctrine of falsus--
in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India.
G
MAXIM:
~
'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - Applicability of.
-
The appellants along with three others were
convicted and sentenced by the trial court uls 302 r/w s.149
H
1142
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA
1143
,{
IPC. On appeal the High Court while affirming the judgment A
of conviction and sentence against the appellants,
acquitted thtee of the accused giving them benefit of
doubt, inter alia, on the premise that the injuries attributed
to them were not found on the person of the deceased.
In the instant appeal it was contended for the B
appellants that both the courts below having noticed
serious discrepancies and contradictions in the
~
evidences of Pws.1 and 4, the judgment of the High Court
was wholly unsustainable; and that all the accused having
been charged with s.302/149 IPC and three of them having c
been acquitted, appellants could not have been convicted
' -
._
u/s 302 IPC.
Dismissing the appeal; the Court
HELD: 1.1 Correctness of the medical report is not D
in dispute. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased is
also not in dispute. The appreciation of evidence on the
·part of the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. In his
judgment, he analysed the depositions of P.W.1 and P .. 4
at great details. Both, the Sessions Judge as also the High
i=
Court, did not find any material discrepancy in depositions
of eye-witnesses i.e. PWs.1 and 4. Some inconsistencies
in their testimonies were natural, but they were found to
be not very material. Their testimonies on material
...,
particulars were found to have been truthful and both the
F
courts below have placed implicit reliance on both the
witnesses. [para 9] [1148-D-E]
1.2 The High Court recorded a ju~gment of acquittal
in favour of three of the accused only on the premise that
the role said to have been played by them was not G
..,_
corroborated by the medical evidence. The High Court
arrived at the said finding despite the fact that it placed
implicit reliance upon the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.4.
It is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine
'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A India. It is also not a case where the testimonies of the
eye-witnesses had been totally disbelieved. [Para 11, 13-
14] [1149-C-F; 1150-D-E ; 1150-G-H]
Jayaseelan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2009(2) SCALE 506;
B
and Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of
Police 2009 (3) SCALE 431 - relied on.
Ba/aka Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4
sec 511- distinguished.
2.1 It may be true that all the five accused persons
c were said to have a common object; they were
prosecuted u/s 302/149,IPC; but the same would not mean
that only because three of them were given benefit of
doubt on a premise which may not be wholly correct, no
case of common intention has been made out against the
D appellants. They came together armed; threatened the
deceased; and went back together. It has not been
established that the appellants had in any way been
prejudiced by non-mentioning of s.34, IPC in thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.