LexRAM UDGAR SINGH versus STATE OF BJHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAM UDGAR SINGH v. ST A TE OF BJHAR B NOVEMBER 3, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] ' Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959-Section 3021Sections25A and 27- c Prosecution for murder-Prosecution case supported by witnesses-Conviction by Courts below-On appeal, held : Conviction justified Criminal Trial : Related witnesses-Evidentiary value of-Held: Relationship is not a D factor to affect credibility of a witness. r Deficient evidence-Evidentiary value of-Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence-Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end-Court is to separate truth from falsehood-But where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up and in E the process of separation an absolutely new case is reconstructed the evidence is to be discarded in toto-Principle of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'. Normal Discrepancies and Material Discrepancies-Difference between--Discussed. F Maxim: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "-Applicability and nature of-Held: The maxim has no applicability in India as it has no general acceptance and has not attained the status of rule of law-It is not mandatory rule of evidence. G Appellant-accused alongwith 8 others, was tried for having caused death of a person by firing a gunshot and assaulting PW-5 and PW-2. Trial Court relying on the evidence of PWs I, 2, 3 and 5 held the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 302 IPC and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. " The eight other accused who were charged for offences punishable u/s 302 H 68 ) RAM UDGAR SINGH v. ST ATE OF B!HAR 69 r/w Section 34 IPC were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. High A Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the conviction of the appellant was not justified; that the witnesses being relatives of the deceased were partisan and hence were not reliable; that having acquitted 8 out of 9 accused on the same set of evidence it was not proper to convict B the appellant by applying a different yardstick; that the time of death as given by the prosecution was improbablised in view of medical evidence according to which rigor mortis could not have set in the dead body within two hours. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The courts were justified in holding that appellant was the assailant, and accordingly convicted him. Evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 clearly establish the definite role played by the accused-appellant. So c far as plea that rigor mortis could not have set in the dead body within D two hours, High Court has rightly concluded that the time which is usually three to four hours may vary according to climatic conditions. No exception could be taken to the well merited reasoning squarely found supported by overwhelming relevant, convincing and concrete evidence placed on record by the prosecution in this case, and no error could be made out or substantiated in them, to call for interference of this Court. E (76-D-E) 2. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation or a friend would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has F to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (74-C-D) Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P.; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and lehna v. State of Haryana, [:2002) 3 SCC 76 AIR (1965) G SC 202, relied on. . I Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, [2002)· 8 SCC 381, referred to. 3.1. Applicability of principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' (false H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A in one thing, false in everything) is untenable in the present case. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue 'is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated B from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.