SANTOSH @ SANTUKRAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
SANTOSH @ SANTUKRAO 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MAY9,2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
> 
Penal Code, I fJ60; Ss. 302 and 307: 
\ 
Assault and murder-Accused attacking deceased with a sharp edged c 
weapon causing his death and injuring PW I-Trial Court found him guilty 
of offences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment 
for life-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Purported discrepancy 
in respect of time of actual lodging of FIR is not such which would prove 
to be f;tal to entire prosecution case particularly when ocular evidence is 
corroborated by the medical evidence-When prosecution case is proved by D 
direct evidence, motive takes a back seat-However, in the facts and 
-c 
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the motive has not been 
... 
proved-Weapons of assault and other articles recovered at the instance of 
the accused-Blood on the shirt recovered matched with the blood group of 
PW I, the victim-Both the Courts below accepted the testimony of PW I as 
E 
a natural witness-Under the facts and circumstances, there exists no reason 
to differ with the findings of the Courts below. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'falsus in Uno, falsus in Omnibus'-App/icabi/ity of 
F 
_.,._ 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, when PW 1 and the 
deceased were _going to attend a weekly bazaar, accused-appellant came from 
the opposite direction and allegedly assaulted the deceased. While PW 1 made 
an attempt to prevent him from attacking, he was also attacked by the accused 
with a sharp edged weapon, as a result whereof he suffered an injury. The G 
deceased was chased and assaulted again by the accused, the victim died on 
the spot. Trial Court found that accused guilty of committing offences u/s. 
302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved, the accused filed 
·-<to. 
an appeal with was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
199 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Accused-appellant contended that credibility of PW 1 as an eye-witness 
~ 
is in question as he had made an attempt to implicate on 'R' falsely; that the 
-.. 
alleged motive for commission of the offence, namely, giving ofa slap to the 
accused by the deceased on an earlier occasion having not been proved, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained; that there exists a discrepancy in 
B regard to the time factor with regard to the holding of the First Information 
Report, as although according to PW 1, it was lodged at 9.00 p.m., the 
Investigating Officer, PW 7 stated that he had recorded the same at 11.45 
p.m., and that seizure of the articles purported to be at the instance of the 
appellant had not been proved. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There exists a discrepancy in regard to the time of lodging 
of the First Information Report. It is, however, not in dispute that PW 1 was 
admitted to hospital He was being treated when his statement was recorded 
by PW 7, the Investigating Officer. According to the doctor treating him, the 
D statement was recorded at about 11.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer, however, 
stated that FIR was lodged at about 11.45 p.m. The possibility of the injured's 
losing track or time by reason of sufferance of grave injuries cannot be ruled 
out Similarly the time of the recording of the statement might have been made 
at 11.00 p.m., but the First Information Report migt have been lodged at about 
11.45 p.m. which would not mean that the recording of the statement of PW 
E 1 had also started at that point of time. Purported discrepancy in respect of 
the time or actual lodging of FIR is not such which would prove to be fatal to 
the entire prosecution case particularly when the ocular evidence is 
corroborated by the medical evidence. 
F 
G 
[Para 9 and 10] (203-D, E, F, G] 
1.2. It is now well known that in India, the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus 
in omnibus has no application. So far as non-establishment of the motive on 
the part of the accused is concerned, suffice it to say that when t_he proseuction 
case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat It is, however, not 
correct to contended that motive has not been proved. 
[Para 101 (203-G, H; 204-A] 
1.3. Before the Courts below, a contention had been raised in regard to 
the identity of the accused. The Trial Court, in view of the fact that both parties 
JI. 
were resident of the same village, rightly negatived the said cont

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