LexRANBIR AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
102
RANBIR AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
April 26, 1973
[K. K. M~THEW AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
E~·idence-Appraisal in cases of party factions.
The appellants were convicted under Ss. 148 and 325/149 I.P.C. Dismiss·
ing the appeal to this Court by special leave,
HELD : ( ( 1) In cases of party factions, there is generally speaking a ten-
dency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent per-
sons along with the guilty ones, but normally where the general substratum
of the occurrence cannot be held to arouse any reasonable doubt or suspicion
about its having taken place, then the prosecution witnesses, provided they are
held to have witnessed the occurrence and to be in a position to identify
the
assailants, are not ordinarily to be assumed to have left out the actual offenders
or the guilty persons.
Although the witnesses for the prosecution are, in such
circumstances, prone to exaggerate the culpability of the actual assailants as
also to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent
members of the opposite party as well, the court has to sift the evidence and
after a close scrutiny '.Vith anxious care and caution to try to come to a Judicial
conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be safely considered to have
taken part in the assault. [105E·G]
(2) The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply
in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the court in
cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence
in
regard to certain particulars to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and
caution.
If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the
prosecution case remains intact then the court should uphold the prosecution
case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy.
[1050-H; 106A]
Deep Chand v. State of Haryana, [1959] 3 S.C.C. 890, followed.
( 3) The question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is
material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the
investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely
support the prosecution case.
It is, therefore, essential that the Investigating
Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons therefor.
[106 B·CJ
A
B
c
D
E
( 4) This Court does not, normally speaking, undertake the appra~al of
F
evidence in an appeal under Ar. 136 of the Constitution. [107B-C]
CRIMU.rAL AppELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 5 of
1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July
22, 1 %6 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 836 of 1964.
G
N. N. Goswamy and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant&.
H. S. M{l!Wah and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the <;:ourt was delivered by
DuA, J.-In this appeal by special leave, five appellants have chal-
lenged their convictio~ under ss. 148 and 325/149, I.P.C. ai;id
se~-
H
tence of rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count ~1th ~ddi
tional fine of Rs. 200/- each under ss. 325/149, I.P.C. and m derault
of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, up-
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
RANBIR v. PUNJAB (Dua, J.)
103
held by alearned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
on appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge,
Ferozepur.
Originally,. 13 persons including the five appellants were tried by
the Sessions Judge, Ferozepllf under ss. 148, 307/149 and 364, l.P.C.
According to the broad features of the prosecution story, on August 11,
1963, Dharamvir P.W.9 started from his village Ramsara for his land
in the area of Azamgarh some time between 7 and 8.00 a.m.
He was
driving a bullock cart and with him were his wife Nathi, P.W.5, his
brother's wife Ankori, P.W.6, and a small girl Guddi as
also one
Chandu, in the said cart.
Walking behind the cart was his brother
Jaidcv, P.W.4.
When they had covered a distance of about H mile~
from _the village Ramsara and were near t.he land of Ranbir appellant,
three jeeps overtook th.eir cart from behind.
One jeep stood in front
of the cart and obstructed its passage : another jeep stood by the side
of the cart towards the east and the third one was behind it.
All the
13 accused persons armed with various weapons emerged. from the.
three jeeps.
We are not concerned with the other accused persons
who are not beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.