S. SUDERSHAN REDDY & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 20-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'· . 
. 
-~ 
S. SUDERSHAN REDDY & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JULY 20, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law: 
Evidence-Testimony of related witness-Held, relationship is not a 
factor to affect credibility of a witness-Judgment of High Court affirming C 
conviction and sentence u/s 302, as recorded by trial court, does not suffer 
from any infirmity to warrant interference-Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
Evidence-Source of light-Not mentioned in FIR-Held, is non-
consequential-It is not necessary that minutest details should be stated in D 
FIR-For lodging FIR, more particularly, in a murder case, stress must be on 
prompt lodging of FIR-However, evidence of one of the witnesses is 
categorical that he saw the attack in the light of scooter head light-FIR-
Contents of 
Legal Maxim : 
"Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "-Held, the maxim has not received 
general acceptance in India nor has it came to occupy the status of rule of 
law. 
E 
Appellants were prosecuted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The 
prosecution case was that on the day of incident PWs 1 to 3 and one 'K' were F 
on their way on two-wheelers. At about 8.30 PM an auto rickshaw overtook 
them in such a way that the two-wheeler which was being driven by 'K' with 
PW-1 as pillion rider fell down. The four accused came out of the auto 
rickshaw and attacked 'K'. Consequently 'K' died on the spot Before the trial 
court out of ten witnesses PWs I to 3 and PW 4, the auto rickshaw driver, 
were produced as eye witnesses. PW-3 fully supported the prosecution case, G 
whereas PW-1 did not support in full; PW-2 did not support the prosecution 
case at all and PW-4 though initially supported the prosecution case in full, 
totally resiled from his earlier version when he was recalled for further cross-
examination by the defence after a month. The trial court convicted all the 
743 
H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A four accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court 
affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In the present appeal filed by the accused, it was contended that since 
PWs I, 2 and 4, produced by prosecution as eye-witnesses did not support the 
prosecution case, the courts below should not have relied on the evidence of 
B PW 3 who was closely related to the deceased; that no source of light was 
mentioned in the FIR; and, therefore, in the circumstances, the courts below 
should not have recorded conviction. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: I. The ground that the witness being a close relative and 
consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no 
substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is 
more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make 
allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of 
D false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful 
approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 
[748-G; 749-E) 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Masalti 
and Ors. v. State of U.P .. AIR (1965) SC :?02; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh. 
E AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002) 3 SCC 76, relied 
on. 
Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974) 3 SCC 698 and 
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, referred to. 
2.1. The plea that since PWs I, 2 and 4 did not support the prosecution 
F case, the testimony of PW-3 should not be accepted and the entire prosecution 
case should be thrown out, is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of 
evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of 
an accused, conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate 
grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open 
to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence of 
G some of the witnesses has been found to be deficient. Falsity of particular 
material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning 
to end. [748-C; 750-D-E) 
2.2. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in 
India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim has not received 
H general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of 
. ' .
-
S. SUDERSHAN REDDY v. ST A TE OF ANDHRA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.