STATE OF HARYANA versus CHANDVIR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 17-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
CHANDVIR AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 302 r/w. 32-Murder--Accused acquitted by High Court giving 
benefit of doubt-On appeal held, it will be highly unsafe to accept the 
evidence of tlze witnesses to base the conviction of Al and A2 for tlze murder 
of tlze deceased. 
Legal Maxims : 
Falsus in Uno, falsus in omnibus--:-Applicability of 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.107 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.86 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 424-DB of 1985. 
D.B. Vohra, K.C. Bajaj and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant. 
Prem Malhotra and G. Prakash for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
424 of 1985 on September 3, 1986. The case of the prosecution is that on 
September 21, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m. Smt. Chandra, a witness of the 
prosecution, had a quarrel with one Smt. Sunita who had drawn water 
stealthily from the well dug by the prosecution party. Pursuant to that, G 
when Rajpal-deceased was proceeding by the side of the house of the 
accused at 5.45 p.m., there ensued a quarrel between Subhash and Rajpal, 
now deceased, end others. In the quarrel the intervener had separated 
them. While deceased was proceeding towards his house at 6 p.m., it is the 
case of the prosecution that all the accused, who were standing near the H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
house of Medu, one of tk accused, had attacked the deceased and when 
other parties had come to intervene, they were also beaten up. The 
deceased almost died instantaneously; after he was taken to the hospital 
he was declared dead. Thereafter a report was lodged at about 11.30 p.m. 
by Medu, PW-9. Investigation was made. The accused were arrested and 
B 
c 
were charged for various offences, including the offences under Section 
148, 302/149, 324, 325, etc. The trial Court acquitted five accused and 
convicted Al to AS for various offences, including the offences under 
Section 302 read with Section 149. On appeal, the High Court set aside the 
convictions and acquitted them of all the charges. Thus this appeal by 
special leave. 
The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the medi-
cal evidence established that the deceased died due to shock and haemor-
rhage on account of the injuries to the lung and heart, which, in the 
ordinary course of nature, causes death. Therefore, there is no dispute as 
D regards the homicide of the deceased Rajpal. He contended that PWs. 9, 
12 and 13 are the injured witnesses. There is also an independent witness. 
All have spoken of the participation of the accused in the commission of 
the crime. The prosecution, therefore, has established the case beyond 
reasonable doubt. The High Court, therefore, was not right in gi,ing benefit 
of doubt to the respondents. 
E 
Having gone through the evidence and the reasoning given by the 
High Court, we do not think that the case warrants interference. It is seen 
that the prosecution has deliberately separated two incidents which oc-
curred at 5.45 p.m. and 6 p.m. on that date. A reading of the evidence 
F 
clearly goes to show that after the first incident of quarrel between the 
ladies had taken place, when the deceased-Rajpal was passing through the 
road and had come near the house of the accused, there appears to have 
arisen a quarrel between the accused party and the prosecution party. Both 
the incidents had taken place during the course of the same transaction. 
The question then is : whether it is possible to believe the evidence of the 
G 
injured witnesses implicitly to base the conviction of the respondents '/ It 
would appear from the evidence adduced that there is no common object 
or intention to kill the deceased. It would appear that it is a case of free 
fight between the accused party and the prosecution party on account of 
the quarrels between the two families. There is evidence that some of the 
H accused suffered injuries in the same transaction and the prosecution has 
STATEv. CHANDVIR 
501 
not explained injuries on them. In those circumstances, the liability of each 
of the accused has to be considered independently. In that attempt, we 
have scanned the evidence of injured witness carefully 

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