RAJENDRA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 08-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-+ 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 589 
RAJENDRA & ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1254 of 2005) 
.--\ 
APRIL 8, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND R.M. 
LODHA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 186 - s.302134 - Prosecution under- Of 
three accused - Death of deceased due to asphyxia - Injury c 
on the deceased corresponding the a/legations not found -
Eye-witnesses to the incident - Witnesses not supporting the 
incident in its entirety, declared hostile - Minor eye-witness. 
._;..-_ 
supporting prosecution case in its entirety - Lodging of FIR 
immediately after the incident - Conviction of two accused D 
and acquittal of one by courts below - On appeal, held: 
Conviction justified - A part of the evidence of even hostile 
witnesses supports the prosecution case so far as convicted 
accused are concerned - Principle offalsus· in uno, falsus in 
omnibus not applicable in India - Minor witness cannot be E 
said to be a tutored witness - Medical evidence also 
corroborate prosecution case. 
Appellants-accused, alongwith co-accused A-1 were 
_ __. 
prosecuted u/s. 302134 IPC. Accordingly to prosecution, 
the motive for commission of the offence was that the F 
deceased (a goldsmith) owed some ornaments to the 
accused persons. He was assaulted by the accused and 
thrown in a well. He died of asphyxia. FIR was lodged by 
PW1 (wife of the deceased) against the three accused. 
However, in her deposition she stated that A-1, who was G 
·-.. 
Pradhan of the village, did not participate in the 
commission of the crime. PW 4 (minor son of the 
deceased) also deposed to that effect. PWs. 2 and 3 also 
did not support the prosecution case in its entirety. PWs 
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A 1, 2 and 3 were declared hostile. Trial Court convicted the 
appellant-accused and acquitted A-1. High Court affirmed 
the judgment of trial court. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-accused contended 
8 inter alia that PWs. 1, 2 and 3 having been declared hostile 
and PW 4 (minor witness) having stated that he deposed 
as tutored by his mother (PW1 ), conviction was not 
sustainable; that prosecution case was not corroborated 
by medical evidence as no injury was found on the 
person of the deceased. 
c 
D 
During pendency of appeal appellant No. 2 since 
expired, appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The F'IR was lodged almost immediately 
after the occurrence had taken place. Although in her 
cross-examination, she inter alia, stated that a report from 
her was taken after the post mortem examination, the 
Investigating Officer was not confronted with any 
E question as regards timing of the lodging of the FIR. In 
any event, the fact that some report had been lodged 
which prompted the Investigating Officer to register a 
case so as to enable him to start the investigation is not 
in dispute. [Para 8] [596-E-G] 
F 
1.2. PW4 was an eye-witness. He supported the 
prosecution case in its entirety. Accordingly to him, when 
the accused persons tried to drag his father after beating 
him, he, his mother and grand-mother came forward to 
G protect him but they were pushed away. He, in his cross-
examination, categorically stated that as he had started 
weeping, he did not know for how much time the assault 
continued. His presence at the place of occurrence 
1~ 
cannot be doubted. It cannot be said that he was a tutored 
H witness. What might have been tutored to him by his 
RAJENDRA & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 
591 
-..+ 
mother was that he should not implicate A-1. A-1 was the 
A 
Pradhan of the village. It is not wholly unlikely that PW 1 
had been put to some pressure by him as a result 
whereof she not only did not support her statement in the 
FIR that A-1 had also participated in the commission of 
·~ 
crime but have asked her son also to tread the same path. 
B 
[Paras 11 and 12) [597-F-G; 598-B-D] 
1.3. In India, the principle falsus in uno, falsus in 
omnibus has no application. Thus, only because PW-1 
deviated from her statement made in the FIR in respect c 
of A-1 her evidence cannot be held to be totally 
unreliable. [Para 14) [598-G-H; 599-A] 
1.4. Apart from the statements made by PW1 and 
-Jo-
PW4 which are sufficient to bring home the charges as 
against the appellant, although PW3 was declared hostile, D 
hi;! also, to some extent, supported the prosecution case. 
Indisputably, the said witness had gone back from his 
statement made before the Investiga

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