RAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 11-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 783 
RAJENDRA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1702 of 2008) 
APRIL 11, 2013 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
PENAZ.. CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
s .. 302 - Murder - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by c 
High Court - Held: The medical evidence is quite consistent 
with the prosecution case that the deceased was killed by 
inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors - Both the eye-witnesses 
fully supported the prosecution case in regard to the assault 
by appellant on deceased with a pair of scissors -
0 
Discrepancies between statements of two eye-witnesses 
1 highlighted by trial court cannot be a ground for rejecting their 
deposition entirely - High Court has rightly rejected the view 
taken by trial court as wholly untenable and has rightly 
accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to 
E 
bring home the guilt of the appellant - Maxim, falsus in uno, 
falsus in omnibus - Evidence. 
An FIR for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC was 
lodged against the accused-appellant, who was a tailor 
by profession. The prosecution case was that one 'KS', 
F 
the brother of PW-1, had given some cloth to the appellant 
for stitching; that prior to the date of occurrence there 
was a quarrel between the two over the delay in getting 
the cloth stitched; that on the date of occurrence, when 
'KS', while returning home, reached in front of the shop 
G 
of the accused, the latter came with a pair of scissors in 
his hand and attacked 'KS' who ran for his life, but the 
accused chased and caught hold of him and gave him 
several blows by the scissors. The incident was 
783 
H . 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A witnessed by many persons including PW-3 (the wife of 
victim) and PW-2, who took the victim to hospital where 
he was declared brought dead. The trial court acquitted 
the accused, but the High Court convicted him u/s 302 
B 
IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The medical evidence is quite consistent 
with the prosecution case that the deceased was killed 
by inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors. It is undeniable 
C that both PW.2 and PW.3 fully supported the prosecution 
case in regard to the assault by the appellant on the 
deceased with a pair of scissors. PW.3, the wife of the 
deceased also deposed before the court regarding the 
genesis of the occurrence i.e., the quarrel between the 
D deceased and the appellant that had taken place on the 
previous evening. Further, the deposition of PW.3 in 
regard to the assault by the appellant on the deceased 
is quite graphic. [para 10 and 15] [789-G-H; 790-E-F] 
E 
1.2 There is no reason for the trial court to come to 
the conclusion that PW.2 and PW.3 were speaking falsely 
and were trying to hide the relationship between PW.2 and 
the deceased or that he lived in the house of the 
deceased as a tenant. In the first place, no such inference 
F is possible on the basis of the depositions of PW.2 and 
PW.3 and, secondly, and more importantly, even if it is 
assumed that the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 in this 
regard were incorrect, that cannot be the ground to reject 
their deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound 
in respect of the main prosecution case. In our system 
G of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not 
followed. The testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3 are wholly 
reliable and there is no reason not to accept the same. 
[para 27, 28 and 32] [794-E-H; 795-F-G] 
H 
1.3 Apart from the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3, there 
RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UITARANCHAL 
785 
are other circumstances that lend credence to the 
A 
prosecution case. The Investigating Officer (PW.11) 
stated that in the course of interrogation the appellant 
volunteered to produce the scissors used for killing the 
deceased from his shop. He took the Investigating 
Officer to his shop, opened it with the keys kept in his 
B 
pocket and recovered the blood stained scissors from 
under the shop counter and produced it before the 
Investigating Officer. The recovery is supported by PW.6 
who signed the recovery mem9. [para 33-35] (795-G-H; 
796-A-C] 
C 
1.4 On a careful consideration of the materials on 
record, this Court is of the view that the High Court has 
. rightly rejected the view taken by the trial court as wholly 
untenable and has rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2 
and PW.3 in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 
D 
[para

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