RAM LAXMAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 03-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 123 
RAM LAXMAN 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. I 40 of2007) 
MARCH 03, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 and 148 - Conviction of all 
A 
B 
the accused by trial court - High Court upheld conviction of 
appe1/ants while acquitting the co-accused - On appeal, held: If a 
C 
witness is found undependable and unreliable his evidence cannot 
be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining 
conviction of another when in all respects he stands 011 same footing 
and deserves parity - In the instant case. the evidence of only eye 
witness PW-JO was highly unreliable and hence ~pecific injuries 
attributed by him cannot carry any weight - Appellants can 
D 
;ustifiably claim parity with the co-accused who have been acquitted 
- Appellants acquitted of all the charges. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court disbelieved PW-10 qua the other 
E 
co-accused and granted them acquittal but accepted his testimony . 
in respect of the appellants by explaining that the maxim "falsus 
in 11110, falsus in omnibus" stands disapproved since long. 
No 
doubt, it is an established principle of criminal law in India that 
only on account of detecting some falsehood in the statement of 
a witness who is otherwise consistent and reliable, his entire 
testimony should not be discarded. It is equally settled law that if 
a witness is found un-clependable and un-reliable his evidence 
cannot be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while 
maintaining conviction of another when in all respects he stands 
on same footing and deserves parity. [Paras 6, 7] [126-E-H] 
F 
G 
2. The High Court erred in maintaining the conviction of 
the appellants while granting acquittal to the other co-accused. 
The only justification for such distinction in the impugned 
judgment is that "the injuries attributed to appellant no.1 and 2 
were corroborated by the post mortem report''. This reasoning 
on the facts of the case cannot hold good because there is no 
H 
123 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 
A discussion with a corresponding finding that the post mortem 
report does not corroborate injuries attributed to other co-
accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of only eye witness PW-
10 is highly unreliable and hence specific injuries attributed by 
him cannot carry any weight. The appellants can justifiably claim 
B parity with the co-accused who have been acquitted. The 
appellants are acquitted of all the charges. [Paras 8, 9] [127-B-D] 
Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (Cri) 46 
- relied on. 
Ugar Ahir v. State qf Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 - referred 
C • 
to. 
AIR 1965 SC 277 
1994 sq:: (Cri) 46 
Case Law Reference 
referred to. 
relied on. 
Para6 
Para 9 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 140 of2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2006 of the High Court 
ofRajasthan in D. B. Crl. Appeal No. 779 of2001 
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Prithu Garg, Udayaditya Banerjee, M/s. 
E Temple Law Firm, T. R. B. Sivakumar, K. V. Vijayakumar, Advs., for 
the Appellant. 
Shovan H., Mil ind Kumar, Jayant Bhatt P. C., B. S. Shankar, Ms. 
Ruche Kohli, Advs. for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J. I. Both the appeals arise out of 
same judgment and order dated 3.1.2006 passed by a Division Bench of 
High Court ofRajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 
2001. By the impugned judgment the High Court has maintained the 
G conviction of appellants namely Ram Laxman and Sanjay alias Sanju for 
offences under Section 302/149 and Section 148 !PC. The sentence 
imposed on the appellants is life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
with default clause under Section 302/149 !PC and RI for one year 
under Section 148 IPC. Both the substantive sentences are to run 
concurrently. Vide the same judgment the High Court has allowed the 
H 
RAM LAXMAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
125 
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
appeal of co-accused Ram Bharos, Sher Singh, Chaturbhuj, Ram Prasad 
A 
and Mangi Lal and acquitted them for the same very offences. 
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the 
entire relevant materials on record and particularly through the judgment 
and order under appeal with a view to support his simple submission that 
the case and evidence against the appellants is same as that against the 
B 
other co-accused who have been acquitted by the High Court.

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