Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2004

SHEESH RAM AND ORS. …APPELLANTS

Versus

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN       …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The  appellants  are  original  Accused  Nos.1,  2  and  4  

respectively  in  S.T.  No.12  of  1993.   The  appellants  were  

convicted,  inter alia,  under Section 302 of the IPC for  the  

murder of one Balram and sentenced to life imprisonment.  

They   have challenged judgment and order dated 29/5/2003  

passed in Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1998 by the Rajasthan  

High Court, confirming their conviction and sentence.  

2.   One Heera son of Surajmal lodged a complaint (Ex. P-

7) at Jagal Tan, Village Lapawali  on 04/02/1991 at around

Page 2

3.50 p.m., stating that on 04/02/1991 at 8.00 a.m., he and  

his son Rameshwar accompanied his other sons Balram and  

Bhagwan Singh who were going to Hindaun School to see  

them off.   They were standing on the road near  the turn  

between Lapawali and Dhara.  While they were waiting for  

the  bus,  Rajdhar  of  village  Lapawali,  along  with  others,  

arrived there in a tractor.  Accused-1 Sheesh Ram, Accused-

2 Radhey, Accused-3 Battu, Accused-4 Rameshwar (in S.T.  

No.12 of 1993), Accused-Ram Kunwar, Accused-Hansey  and  

Accused-Har  Sahai  (in  S.T.  No.350  of  1992)  stopped  the  

tractor.   Accused-3  Battu  exhorted  “do  not  let  this  

opportunity slip off”. All the persons jumped from the tractor.  

Complainant Heera and his son Rameshwar saved their life  

by fleeing towards the village.   His  elder  son Balram fled  

towards  the  south from the road.  The accused followed  

them.  Accused-2  Radhey  caught  hold  of  Balram  and  

assaulted him with a Kulhari.   Balram fell  down. Later on,  

Accused-3 Battu  dealt an axe blow on his throat.  Others too  

continued assaulting Balram.  Balram was badly injured.  He  

succumbed to the injuries.  Accused-1 Sheesh Ram followed  

2

Page 3

Bhagwan Singh, caught hold of him and inflicted injuries on  

him.   Other accused also inflicted injuries on him. Under the  

impression that Bhagwan Singh had died, all the accused left  

the place.  Bhagwan Singh was admitted in the hospital at  

Karauli.  On the basis of this report, a case under Sections  

147,  148,  324,  326,  302,  307 read with  Section  149 and  

Section 341 of the IPC was registered. Accused Ram Kunwar  

was arrested on 23/6/1991.  On completion of investigation,  

charge-sheet was laid against Ram Kunwar.  Another charge-

sheet  was  laid  against  accused  Hanse,  Har  Sahai  and  

Rajdhar.  The case was committed to the Sessions Court and  

numbered as S.T.  No.356 of 1992. Against the appellants,  

charge-sheet was laid on 3/2/1993. After committal  of  the  

said case to the Sessions Court, it was numbered as S.T. No.  

12  of  1993.   Both  the  cases  were  tried  together  as  they  

arose out of the same FIR.  

3. In  support  of  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  20  

witnesses out  of which,  four  are eye-witnesses.   The eye-

witnesses  are  PW-2  Khushiram,  PW-3  Rameshwar,  PW-4  

3

Page 4

Yadram and PW-5 Bhagwan Singh, who is an injured witness.  

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and examined  

seven witnesses in their defence. The trial court convicted all  

the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149  

and  Section  307  read  with  Section  149  of  the  IPC.   On  

appeal, the High Court acquitted Hansey, Har Sahai, Rajdhar  

and Ram Kunwar.  The High Court acquitted Accused Battu  

of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 of the IPC.  His  

conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC was  

confirmed.  He has not appealed against the order convicting  

and sentencing him. Appellant–Sheesh Ram was acquitted of  

the charges under Sections 148,  302 and 307 of  the IPC.  

Instead,  he  was  convicted  under  Section  302  read  with  

Section 34 of the IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34  

of the IPC.  He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life  

and  a  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in  default,  to  further  suffer  six  

months  rigorous  imprisonment  and  to  suffer  rigorous  

imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,  

to  further  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  three  months,  

respectively.  Appellant–Rameshwar  was  acquitted  of  the  

4

Page 5

charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with Section  

149 of the IPC.  Instead, he was convicted under Section 302  

read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of  

the IPC.  He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life  

and  a  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in  default,  to  suffer  further  six  

months  rigorous  imprisonment  and  to  suffer  rigorous  

imprisonment  for  five  years  and  a  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-,  in  

default,  to  further  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  three  

moths, respectively. Appellant-Radhey was acquitted of  

charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section  

149 of the IPC.  Instead, he was convicted under Section 302  

read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of  

the IPC.  He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life  

and  a  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in  default,  to  suffer  six  months  

rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment  

for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further  

suffer simple imprisonment for three months, respectively.  

This judgment is challenged in the instant appeal.  

5

Page 6

4. Mr. P.C. Agarwala, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellants submitted that out of the eight accused, the  

High Court acquitted four accused.  The High Court has, in  

fact,  observed that  the four  acquitted accused have been  

falsely implicated.  Counsel submitted that it is,  therefore,  

risky to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to  

convict  the  appellants.   These witnesses  exaggerated the  

prosecution story and involved the acquitted accused.  It is  

possible that even so far as the appellants are concerned,  

they have not come out with the truth.  This is a case where  

truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed and truth cannot  

be separated from falsehood.  The doctrine of ‘falsus in uno  

falsus in omnibus’, is clearly attracted to this case.  Counsel  

pointed  out  that  the  eye-witnesses  appear  to  be  tutored.  

They are related to each other and, hence, are interested  

witnesses.  Their evidence will have to be read cautiously.  

Moreover,  complainant  Heera  has  not  been  examined.  

Admittedly, there is enmity between the two sides.  There is  

a  land  dispute  between  complainant  Heera  and  accused  

Rajdhar.   Ram Kunwar’s son Kamal was murdered and, in  

6

Page 7

that connection, complainant Heera and others,  are facing  

trial.  During the pendency of this trial, complainant Heera’s  

son Balram was murdered.  False involvement on account of  

long standing enmity cannot be ruled out.  The conviction of  

the appellants, therefore, deserves to be set aside.  

5. Mr.  S.S.  Shamshery,  learned  Addl.  Advocate  General  

appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that  

the  evidence  of  four  eye-witnesses  is  consistent.   PW-2  

Khushiram  and  PW-4  Yadram  are  independent  witnesses.  

There is  no reason to  cast  any doubt  on their  testimony.  

Counsel submitted that in a catena of judgments, this Court  

has held that the doctrine ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ is  

not applicable in India.  Even if some portion of the evidence  

of a witness is found to be deficient, the remaining portion  

can be relied upon, if it is sufficient to establish prosecution  

case.   In  this  connection,  he relied on  Rizan & Anr.  v.  

State of Chhattisgarh1.   Counsel submitted that there is  

1 (2003) 2 SCC 661

7

Page 8

enough  credible  evidence  on  record  which  bears  out  the  

prosecution case.  The appeal, be therefore, dismissed.  

6. Deceased  Balram  was  most  brutally  murdered.  

According  to  PW-12  Dr.  Meena,  the  cause  of  death  was  

haemorrhage and shock due to head injury leading to injury  

to brain and injury to carotid artery in neck.  PW-5 Bhagwan  

Singh was also brutally attacked.  He received four incised  

wounds.  He suffered a fracture of left parietal bone.  Being  

an injured witness, he is the most important witness in this  

case.  He  has  described  the  incident  in  question.   The  

defence has not made any dent in his evidence by cross-

examining him.   In  fact,  in  the cross-examination,  he has  

given more details about the incident in question, which are  

consistent with what he has stated in the examination–in-

chief.   He has stated that he, deceased Balram, his father  

Heera and his other brother Rameshwar were standing near  

the road near the boundaries of village Dehra and Lapawali.  

At that time, a tractor driven by Rajdhar came from village  

Lapawali side.  Rajdhar halted the tractor near them.  The  

8

Page 9

appellants,  who  were  sitting  in  the  tractor,  got  down.  

Accused Battu was armed with an axe.  Appellant Radhey  

was also armed with an axe.   Appellant Sheesh Ram was  

armed with a sword.  Appellant Rameshwar was armed with  

a dhariya and others were having lathis.  They encircled PW-

5 Bhagwan Singh, his father and brothers.  His father and  

brother Rameshwar ran towards the village.  Balram also ran  

towards the village.  He ran towards Katara village.  Accused  

Radhey caught hold of the collar of Balram and dealt an axe  

blow on Balram’s head.  Balram fell down.  Appellant Sheesh  

Ram dealt an axe blow on Balram when he had fallen down.  

Accused Rameshwar dealt a blow with a dhariya on the right  

hand  of  Balram.   According  to  PW-5  Bhagwan  Singh,  

thereafter,  appellant  Sheesh  Ram  caught  hold  of  him  

(Bhagwan  Singh).   Appellant  Rameshwar  hit  on  his  left  

temple with a dhariya.  He fell down. Appellant Sheesh Ram  

dealt an axe blow behind his ear when he had fallen down.  

Accused Hanse dealt a lathi blow on his face.   Thereafter, he  

became unconscious.  

9

Page 10

7. PW-2 Khushiram, PW-3 Rameshwar and PW-4 Yadram  

have corroborated this witness.  It is submitted that all these  

witnesses are related and therefore their evidence cannot be  

drelied upon.  Assuming they are related to each other and,  

hence,  interested  witnesses,  it  is  well  settled  that  the  

evidence of interested witnesses is not always suspect.  It  

has to be scrutinized with caution and can be accepted if it is  

found  reliable.   Presence  of  PW-5  Bhagwan  Singh  at  the  

scene  of  offence  can  hardly  be  disputed  since  he  is  an  

injured  witness.   His  evidence  has  strengthened  the  

prosecution case.  Evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5 also inspires  

confidence.  So far as the acquitted accused are concerned,  

the evidence of  these witnesses qua them is  found to be  

exaggerated.  But, on account of that, their entire evidence  

cannot  be discarded.   All  these witnesses stated that  the  

acquitted accused had lathis and they dealt lathi blows on  

PW-5  Bhagwan  Singh.   This  part  of  their  evidence  is  

disbelieved.  It is true that these witnesses have improved  

the  prosecution  story  to  some  extent.   But,  that  

improvement  or  that  exaggerated  version  can  be  safely  

10

Page 11

separated from the main case of the prosecution.  So far as  

the main prosecution case is  concerned,  all  the witnesses  

are consistent.  This is not a case where truth and falsehood  

are inextricably mixed up.  Witnesses tend to exaggerate the  

prosecution story.  If the exaggeration does not change the  

prosecution story or convert it into an altogether new story,  

allowance can be made for it.  If evidence of a witness is to  

be  disbelieved  merely  because  he  has  made  some  

improvement  in  his  evidence,  there  would  hardly  be  any  

witness on whom reliance can be placed by the courts.   It is  

trite that the maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has no  

application in India.  It is merely a rule of caution.  It does  

not have the status of rule of law.  In  Balaka Singh  v.  

State of Punjab2, this Court has said that where it is not  

feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because the grain  

and the 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  background  

2 (1975) 4 SCC 511

11

Page 12

against  which  they  are  made,  the  Court  cannot  make  an  

attempt to separate truth from falsehood. But, as we have  

already noted, this is not a case where the grain and chaff  

are inextricably mixed up.  The evidence of eye-witnesses is  

not  discrepant  on  the  material  aspect  of  the  prosecution  

case.   Reliance can, therefore, be placed on them.  In this  

connection, reliance placed by the counsel for the State on  

Rizan is apt.  The same principle is reiterated by this Court  

in  Rizan.   We  may  quote  the  relevant  paragraph  from  

Rizan.  

“Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be   deficient,  in  case  residue  is  sufficient  to  prove   guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a   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 guilt of other accused persons.   Falsity of a particular material witness or material   particular would not ruin it from the beginning to   end.  The maxim  falsus in uno falsus in omnibus  has  no  application  in  India  and  the  witnesses   cannot be branded as liars. The maxim  falsus in  uno  falsus  in  omnibus has  not  received general   acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy   the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of   

12

Page 13

caution.  All  that  it  amounts  to,  is  that  in  such   cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that   it  must  be  disregarded.  The  doctrine  merely   involves the question of weight of evidence which   a court may apply in a given set of circumstances,   but it is not what may be called “a mandatory rule   of  evidence”.  (See  Nisar  Ali v.  State  of  U.P  AIR  1957 SC 366.)”  

8. The  appellants  examined  defence  witnesses.  

Testimony of defence witnesses is not believed by the trial  

court as well as the High Court.  We find no reason to take a  

contrary view.  It is pertinent to note that Kamal, the brother  

of  the  appellants  was  murdered  and  for  that  murder,  

complainant  Heera  and some of  the  witnesses  are  facing  

trial.  There is, therefore, strong motive to kill Balram, son of  

Heera.  It is not possible, however, to come to a conclusion  

that because of this enmity, the appellants have been falsely  

implicated.   We  have  already  discussed  the  evidence  on  

record.   The  evidence  of  eye-witnesses,  particularly  the  

evidence of PW-5 Bhagwan Singh, the injured eye-witness, is  

trustworthy.   Therefore,  the  argument  that  on  account  of  

previous enmity, the appellants have been involved in this  

case is rejected.   Taking an overall view of the matter and  

13

Page 14

examined in light of Balaka Singh and Rizan, we are of the  

opinion that no interference is necessary with the impugned  

judgment.  The appeal is dismissed.  

……………………………………….J. (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)

………………………………….J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi; January 29, 2014.

14