Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1851 OF 2010  

BIJENDER SINGH    .. APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                     .. RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1852/2010

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1876/2010

AND

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1853/2010

O R D E R

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order  

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in  

Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 2005, wherein and whereunder the High  

Court  has  allowed  the  appeals  filed  by  the  six  accused  persons  

namely, Kishori Lal, Gulbir, Chander Pal, Dharam Pal, Desh Raj and  

Sher Singh and dismissed the appeals filed by the other accused  

persons and thereby confirmed the  judgment and order of the Trial  

Court qua the other five accused persons.  

 2. Tragic case of a double murder of Ram Kishan and Rattan  

Singh (“the deceased” for short) on 04.12.1996. The dispute between  

the accused persons and the injured and deceased persons pertained  

to a piece of land in village Gurwari. The Prosecution story, as

Page 2

2

noticed by the High Court, is as under:  

“That on 04.12.1996, Complainant, Lachhman, resident  of Gurwar, along with his uncle Rattan Singh and Ram Kishan  alias  Rama  were  irrigating  their  fields  situated  near  Yamuna river. At about 12.30 p.m. Kishore Lal son of Nathi  and Desh Raj son of Lakhi came there on their tractors.  Charan, Dharam Pal, Chander Pal, Gulbir alias Gulli, Amar  Singh alias  Amri, Sher  Singh, Bijender,  Manohar Lal  and  Mahipal were on the tractors.  Manohar Lal was armed with a  licenced  gun,  Charan  was  having  a  double  barrel  gun,  Mahipal was armed with country made pistol.  Amar Singh  alias Amri, Dharam Pal, Kishori Lal, Sher Singh, Bijender,  Desh Raj and Gulbir were armed with ballams, Chander Pal  was armed with a lathi.  Accused started ploughing the land  with  their  tractor.   Objection  was  raised  by  the  complainant party and requested the accused party not to  plough the land because the land was in their possession  and wheat crop was sown. Complainant came forward to stop  the  tractor  then  Charan  fired  a  shot  hitting  the  complainant.   Charan  again  fired  a  shot  hitting  the  complainant. On receipt of fire arm injuries, complainant  fell down then Kishore Lal gave ballam blow on the back of  his right palm. Amar Singh alias Amri gave lathi blow on  the back of his right palm.  Amar Singh alias Amri gave  lathi  blow  hitting  his  left  shoulder.  Chander  Pal  gave  lathi blow on his waist.  After that Ram Kishan and Rattan  Singh tried to intervene and rescue the complainant then  Amar Singh alias Amri gave ballam blow to Ram Kishan which  hit on his thigh near his left leg. Dharam Pal gave ballam  blow to Ram Kishan on the left ankle of Ram Kishan. Ram  Kishan on receipt of injuries fell down. Then Sher Singh  and  Bijender  gave  blows  with  their  respective  weapons  hitting on the back of Rattan Singh. Mahipal fired a shot  from his country made pistol hitting on the head of Rattan  Singh.  Bijender gave ballam blow hitting on the right side  of the head near armpit of Rattan Singh, Raula was raised.  Chander Pal and Hukam came to the spot and had witnessed  the occurrence. They had rescued the complainant from the  clutches  of  the  accused-party.   Thereafter,  accused  had  fled away from the spot with their respective weapons on  the tractors. Injured was being shifted to Palwal Hospital  but on the way, Ram Kishan alias Rama had succumbed to his  injuries. First aid was given to the injured in the Palwal  Hospital. Rattan Singh was referred to Delhi Hospital.”

3. It transpires from the record that the accused persons had  

reached the said land in their tractors armed with weapons including

Page 3

3

guns. They witnessed the deceased persons and others cultivating the  

land and therefore forcibly entered the lands and upon resistance  

being offered, they assaulted the deceased persons and others with  

lethal weapons carried by them. As a result of the assault, few were  

injured and two succumbed to death; one while being rushed to the  

hospital and the other at the hospital even after being provided  

medical aid.  

4. The FIR was registered based on the statement of Lachhman  

Singh  (PW-1).  Post-Mortem  of  the  dead  bodies  of  Ram  Kishan  and  

Rattan  Singh  was  conducted  by  Dr.  Dhara  Singh  (PW-14)  and  Dr.  

Alexander  F.  Khakha  (PW-15),  respectively.  Several  recoveries  

including the weapons were made at the instance of accused persons.  

On completion of investigation, the case was committed for trial.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses, while  

the defense has only examined DW-1 - the Patwari of the village to  

speak about the ownership of the land where the incident occurred.  

PW-1 is the complainant and also the injured witness. Chander Pal -  

PW-3 is an eye-witness to the incident. Dr. Lekhi - PW-7, who had  

medically examined deceased Rattan Singh and accused person - Amar  

Singh, has testified in respect of the injuries on the bodies of the  

two  persons.  PW-14  and  PW-15  were  also  examined  in  respect  of  

injuries sustained by the deceased persons.

6. The Trial Court, keeping in view the evidence of PW-1 and  

PW-3  and  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  deceased  persons,  has  

rejected  the  defense  version  with  respect  to  right  of  private

Page 4

4

defense in its entirety and has reached the conclusion that all the  

eleven accused persons had participated in the brutal assault and  

therefore convicted them for the offence punishable under Sections  

302 and 307 read with Sections 148 & 149 of the IPC. The accused  

persons  were  sentenced  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life  under  

Section 302 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in  

default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year and  

under Section 307 IPC, for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a  

fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo further rigorous  

imprisonment  for  six  months  each.  The  aforesaid  sentences  were  

directed to run concurrently. It is this order passed by the Trial  

Court which was called in question by the accused persons before the  

High Court.  

7. The High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on  

record and carefully analyzing the submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties, has come to the conclusion that the oral  

evidence in respect of injuries caused by Desh Raj, Kishore Lal,  

Dharam Pal, Chander Pal, Gulbir alias Gulli and Sher Singh is not  

corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The injuries alleged  

to have been caused by them have neither been noticed by the doctors  

while examining the accused persons nor have they surfaced in the  

post-mortem  reports.  Therefore,  the  High  Court  has  extended  the  

benefit of doubt to the aforesaid six persons and has reached the  

conclusion that the story of the prosecution, insofar as they are  

concerned, cannot be believed and the prosecution witnesses might  

have exaggerated their statements to include the aforesaid persons

Page 5

5

along with the actual perpetrators of the offence. Accordingly, the  

Court has acquitted the six accused persons and confirmed conviction  

of the remaining five accused persons.  It is these five accused  

persons namely, Amar Singh, Charan Singh, Bajinder, Manohar Lal and  

Mahipal, who are before us in these appeals.   

8. We have heard Shri Vivek Sood,           Shri M.Z.Chaudhary,  

learned counsel appearing for the accused persons and Shri Roopansh  

Purohit, Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State  

in these appeals. We have also carefully perused the judgment and  

order of the Courts below and the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-7, PW-

14 and PW-15 alongwith the Post-Mortem Reports.

9. Shri Sood and Shri Chaudhary would submit that since the  

High Court, on the same set of evidence, has acquitted the six out  

of the eleven accused persons, the same benefit of doubt should be  

extended to the remaining accused persons as well. They would place  

reliance on the observations of this Court in Balaka Singh & Ors. v.  

The State of Punjab,  (1975) 4 SCC 511, wherein while noticing the  

principles laid down in Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC  

15, this Court has highlighted the caution that must be exercised  

while convicting or acquitting the accused persons differentially on  

the basis of same piece of evidence. Shri Sood would further rely on  

the evidence of PW-1, wherein he has stated that two of the accused  

persons were driving the tractor on the date of the incident has not  

been believed by the High Court. He would contend that since the  

genesis of the prosecution story itself was not believed by the High  

Court,  the  evidence  of  PW-1  raises  element  of  doubt  defeating

Page 6

6

immense  reliance  placed  on  it  while  convicting  the  five  accused  

persons.  

10. In essence, the learned Counsel would seek application of  

principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, in other words false  

in  one  thing,  false  in  everything.  This  Court  has  consistently  

observed in number of cases that even when the major portion of  

evidence is found to be deficient, if the residue is sufficient to  

prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number  

of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is  

the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where  

the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the  

court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence  

has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused  

persons.  Falsity  of  particular  material  witness  or  material  

particular in the evidence would not render it non-useful in its  

entirety.  

11. This Court in Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 366,  

has observed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no  

application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars.  

This Court explained that this maxim has neither received general  

acceptance nor has it been elevated to attain the status of rule of  

law but is merely a rule of caution. All what it implies is that in  

such cases testimony may be disregarded but not discarded. The maxim  

merely involves the question of importance which the court may apply  

to the evidence in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what

Page 7

7

may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence’.  

12. In  Gurcharan Singh & Anr. v.  State of Punjab,  AIR 1956 SC  

460, this Court has observed that merely because some of the accused  

persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so  

far  as  direct  testimony  went,  was  the  same  does  not  lead  as  a  

necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be  

acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused  

who had been acquitted from those who were convicted.  

13. Before we delve into the merits of the submissions made by  

the learned Counsel for the parties, we intend to place on record  

the decision of this Court in Balaka Singh case (supra) where this  

Court has observed:

“8...the court must make an attempt to separate grain  from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this  could only be possible when the truth is separable from  the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from  the  chaff  because  the  grain  and  the  chaff  are  so  inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation  the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new  case  for  the  prosecution  by  divorcing  the  essential  details  presented  by  the  prosecution  completely  from  the context and the background against which they are  made, then this principle will not apply....”  

14. This Court in Ugar Ahir & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965  

SC 277 and Sohrab S/O Beli Nayata & Anr. v. State of M.P., (1972) 3  

SCC  751  has  cautioned  that  if  upon  operation  of  the  aforesaid  

doctrine,  the  whole  body  of  the  testimony  were  to  be  rejected,  

because  the  witness  was  evidently  testifying  falsehood  in  some  

aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice

Page 8

8

would come to a dead halt. The witnesses, as is observed generally,  

do sprinkle a few embellishments and strokes of embroidery in their  

stories. Therefore, appraisal in each case as to what extent the  

evidence is worthy of credence and acceptance has to be done and  

disbelieve in one respect may not lead to the necessary assumption  

in law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The  

evidence, therefore, has to be sifted with utmost care. This Court  

has further observed that it is not a sound rule for the reason that  

one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a  

grain  of  untruth  or  at  any  rate  exaggeration,  embroideries  or  

embellishment. (See: Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2002)  

6 SCC 81; Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643;  

Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 601; Jakki @ Selvaraj &  

Anr. v. State represented by the IP, Coimbatore,  (2007) 9 SCC 589  

and Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 11 SCC 425.)

15. In  our  considered  view,  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  the  

learned Counsel do sound striking but on deeper consideration is  

devoid of any merit whatsoever. To say so, we have carefully perused  

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, including their examination-in-chief  

and the cross-examination, alongwith the evidence of doctors.  Both  

the eye-witnesses have spoken in one voice that it is the accused  

persons, namely, Amar Singh, Charan, Bijender Singh, Manohar Lal and  

Mahipal who were present at the field on the fateful day and had  

assaulted the deceased persons and the injured eye-witnesses. The  

evidence of PW-1 stands unimpeached in his cross examination and the  

prosecution  story  insofar  as  the  aforesaid  five  accused  persons

Page 9

9

stands unaffected. However, the said evidence of eye-witnesses when  

read in consonance with the medical evidence does raise a reasonable  

doubt about the presence of the other six accused persons. In our  

considered view, even if we separate the chaff from the grain, it is  

difficult  to  hold  that  the  said  five  accused  persons  had  not  

participated in the incident. In view of the above, we agree with  

the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the High Court while  

convicting the aforesaid accused persons.

16. Insofar  as  the  discrepancy  pointed  out  by  the  learned  

counsel to the initial version of the PW-1 insofar as these accused  

persons entering into the agricultural field in their tractors is  

concerned, upon careful perusal of the testimony of PW-1, we are in  

agreement  with  the  observations  of  the  High  Court.  However,  it  

assumes significance that the testimony of PW-1 in respect of the  

manner in which the incident has unfolded and the offence has been  

committed,  including  the  individual  role  attributed  to  the  five  

accused persons, has been believed by the High Court. The factum of  

recovery of weapons from the said accused persons and the injuries  

caused by them being corroborated by the medical evidence, leaves no  

room for doubt that the said accused persons were not only present  

but had also actively participated in the commission of the offence.  

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was  

justified  in  relying  upon  the  evidence  of  PW-1  to  reach  the  

conclusion of guilt of the five accused persons.

17. Lastly,  the  learned  counsel  would  submit  that  since  the

Page 10

10

genesis of the incident has not been believed by the High Court, it  

was not justified in convicting the five accused persons, and since  

the accused persons were not aggressors of the assault and in the  

scuffle might have caused injuries in exercise of their right of  

private defense, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial  

Court and confirmed by the High Court requires to be modified from  

Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. In our considered  

view,  this  submission  of  the  learned  counsel  has  no  merit  

whatsoever,  since  the  trial  court  and  the  High  Court,  with  the  

available evidence on record, has rejected the plea of self defense  

while concluding it is the accused persons who were aggressors on  

the date of the incident and had caused injuries to the opposite  

party which has resulted in the death of two persons.

18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered  

opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any error,  

insofar as convicting the appellants. Accordingly, the appeals are  

dismissed.

19. If any of the appellants are released on bail during the  

pendency of these appeals, their bail bonds are cancelled and they  

are  directed  to  surrender  forthwith  to  undergo  their  respective  

sentences.

Ordered accordingly.  

.....................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

Page 11

11

.....................J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 21, 2013.