LexRIZAN AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF CHHATISGARH, RAIPUR, CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* ' RIZAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF CHHATISGARH, RAIPUR, CHHATISGARH JANUARY 2I, 2003 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, J 860: A B Ss. 32 3 and 326-Conviction under by courts below rejecting plea of C private defence by accused-On appeal, held-In the facts of the case plea of private defence not proved-Hence conviction justified. Sections 96, 97, 98, JOO and JOI-Right to private defence-Proof of- Held, in order to find availability of private defence the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by him D and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are relevant factors to be considered-Exercise of private defence is a question of/act-The burden to prove it is on the accused which can be discharged by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution case-Separate calling of evidence not necessary-Court can E consider its exercise even if it is not pleaded, if the same is available to be considered from the material on record-Evidence Act, J872---Section JOS. Criminal Trial: Interested or related witness-Reliability on-Held, relationship is not F a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Natural discrepancy and material discrepancy in evidence-Distinction between. Non-explanation of injuries on accused-Effect of-Heid, mere non- G explanation would not affect the prosecution case if the injuries are minor and superficial and where evidence is creditworthy. Maxims: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"-Applicability of-Held, has no 457 H 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. A application in India-It is not a rule of law but merely a rule of caution-It is not a mandatory rule of evidence. J.. Accused-appellants, along with 4 accused were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w Section 34 and Section 323 IPC. Prosecution case was that there was bad blood between the accused and complainant B party over certain properties and civil litigation was going on. When the six accused were cutting the crop raised by PW2, he asked the accused not to do so. Appellant-accused 'R' snatched the axe of PW2 and assaulted him and his wife PW4 resulting in severalinjuries. Appellant- accused 'D' also caused injuries to PWs 2 and 4 with a stick. Other C accused also assaulted him, PW4 and his daughter-in-law PWS. Trial Court convicted a·ppellant-accused 'R' u/s 326 IPC for causing injury to PW2 and u/s 323 IPC for causing injury to PW4. Appellant- accused 'D' was convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries.to the two witnesses. They were acquitted of the rest of the charges. Other D 4 accused were acquitted of all the charges. High Court upheld the order of trial court. In appeal to this court appellants contended that injuries were caused in exercise of right to private defence; that conviction of appellants did not stand to reason since on the same set of evidence four other accused E were acquitted; that the witnesses were related; and that the sentences imposed were high and in view of the fact that occurrence took place five years back, sentences be reduced to already undergone. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: t. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual .,..4. culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has 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 G it is cogent and credible. (464-EI Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors., v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. H State of Haryana, 2002 3 sec 761, relied on. RIZAN v. STATE OF CHHA TISGARH 459 2.1. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in A 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. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. The maxi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.