SUCHA SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 31-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
SUCHA SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
JULY 31, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3: 
Partisan witness-Credibility of-Held: Relationship does not affect 
credibility of a witness. 
C 
Major portion of evidence deficient leading to acquittal of number of 
accused-Residue sufficient to prove guilt of some accused-Credibility of-
Held: Accused can be convicted notwithstanding acquittal of number accused 
since it is the duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff 
Criminal Trial: 
Rule of benefit of doubt-Applicability of 
D 
Reasonable doubt-It is fair doubt based upon reason and common 
sense and not on imaginary, trivial or nearly possible doubt-It must grow out E 
of evidence in the case. 
Discarding of evidence-Accused armed with deadly weapons attacking 
victim-Prosecution witness unarmed and bare handed and not coming to the 
rescue of victim-Held: As instinct of self preservation dominant instinct, 
inaction of not coming to rescue not a ground to discard evidence. 
Non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused-Held· Case should 
not be rejected automatically without any further probe. 
F 
Prosecution version-Credibility of-Name of prosecution witness not 
figuring in the inquest report or f!DR Report-Held: does not corrode G 
credibility of prosecution version when absence is explained by witnesses. 
Maxim: 
"Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"-Applicability of-Discussed. 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
According to the prosecution, due to the hostility between the parties 
on the fateful day accused-appellants armed with deadly weapons along 
with G and R surrounded the deceased. R and G raised lalkaras. 
Appellants-accused inflicted deadly injury to the deceased resulting in his 
death on the spot. Thereafter, all the accused brought the dead body of 
the deceased to the house of R. One of the prosecution witnesses who 
B witnessed the incident lodged FIR. During trial, accused pleaded that they 
were falsely implkated. However, trial court convicted the accused .. In 
appeal, High Court acquitted them. Respondent-State filed appeal before 
this Court. The matter was remitted to the High Court, and it convicted 
the appellants-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 
C Section 201 IPC, but acquitted R and G. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial Court and the High Court rightly came to the 
conclusion that the appellants-accused are guilty under Section 302 read 
D with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. [48-F) 
2.1. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibiiity 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 false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to 
E adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is 
cogent and credible. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the witness being a 
close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be 
relied upon. [43-F; 44-D) 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli 
F Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974) 3 SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar 
v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P., 
AIR (965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407 and 
Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002) 3 SCC 76, referred to. 
G 
3.1. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in 
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. Where 
chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict 
an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be 
H deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular 
SU CHA SINGH v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
37 
material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the A 
beginning to end. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, 
because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up and in the process of 
separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing 
essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context 
and the background against which they are made, the only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.