1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.764 OF 2009

Rohtas & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

The State of Haryana … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order

dated 13th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.241­DB of 1999,

whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants

Rohtas (Accused No.1)  and Surender Singh  (Accused No.2) for

offences punishable under Section 302/34 of  the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Trial Court came to be confirmed.

2. Initially, six accused were tried for the offence registered as

FIR No.298 on 26th  April,  1998 at  Police  Station,  City  Palwal.

2

Bishan Singh  (PW­1)  reported the  matter to the  police  station

whose statement came to  be recorded  on  25th  April, 1998  at

about 11.30 p.m., alleging that at about 6.30 p.m. a quarrel had

taken place between two groups.   He was member of one of the

groups whereas Roop Chand (Accused No.4) was member of

another group that had assaulted his brother Ved Prakash and

nephew Anil Kumar.  They had sustained injuries and were taken

to  Government  Hospital,  Palwal  by  Bishan  Singh (PW­1),  Rati

Chand (father of Anil Kumar) and Baljit Singh (PW­2) for

treatment.   At about 8.30 p.m., when they were standing at the

gate of Government Hospital Palwal, his brother Mohar Pal

arrived there on a motorcycle.  He was told to bring money from a

commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Palwal.   When Mohar Pal was

leaving  towards Anaj  Mandi,  at  a distance  of  about  ten paces

from the gate of the hospital, all the six accused persons came

from the front side and stopped his motorcycle.  Soon thereafter,

appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused

No.2) both inflicted   knife blows one after the other in the

stomach of Mohar Pal.   Immediately thereafter, Mohar Pal

attempted to run away by raising alarm “mar diya, mar diya”.

Billu (Accused No.5) and Rajender (Accused No.3) caught hold of

Mohar Pal and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) gave one knife blow in

3

the  abdomen  of  Mohar  Pal.   Similarly,  Roop  Chand (Accused

No.4) gave knife blow in the abdomen of Mohar Pal.  He also gave

a knife blow on the waist of Mohar Pal as a result of which Mohar

Pal fell down.  It is stated that Bishan Singh, Ravi, Ved Prakash,

Anil and Baljit Singh (PW­2), who were present at the scene, ran

towards the spot and on seeing them, the accused persons ran

away.  Thereafter,  Mohar Pal  was  immediately  removed to the

hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to the injuries

and was declared dead.   On the basis of this FIR, the

investigation was taken over by ASI Gian Singh (PW­6).   

3. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed

against six accused persons for offence punishable under

Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC.  The trial commenced before the

Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad being Sessions  Case

No.40 of 1998.  Both sides produced witnesses.  According to the

accused persons, they were falsely implicated.  Further, it is their

stand that Mohar Pal was injured in the previous incident which

had taken place  at  6.30  p.m.  on  the  same evening.  He  was

member  of the  aggressor  party.  During the fight  which took

place, he must have sustained injuries at the hands of opposite

party.   It was also the case of the accused that Mohar Pal had

4

suffered injuries at some other place near Anaj Mandi and he was

brought to the hospital in a three­wheeler.   In other words, the

incident did not happen near the hospital.    

4. On the basis of such alternative plea, the accused persons

denied their involvement in the commission of the offence.  After

completion of the trial and recording of statements of the

concerned  accused persons  under  Section 313 of the  Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court finally convicted Rohtas

(Accused No.1), Surender Singh (Accused No.2), Roop Chand

(Accused No.4) and  Dev  Kumar (Accused  No.6) but acquitted

Rajender (Accused No.3) and Billu (Accused No.5) by giving them

benefit of doubt.   The Trial Court accordingly convicted the four

accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and

sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.30,000/­ each to the widow of deceased Mohar Pal, in default

to undergo further rigorous imprisonment  for two years.   This

decision was carried in appeal by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6

being Criminal Appeal No.241­DB of 1999 before the High Court

of Punjab and  Haryana at  Chandigarh.   The  High  Court, on

reappreciation of the evidence on record, affirmed the finding of

guilt against the appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender

5

Singh (Accused No.2) but acquitted Roop Chand (Accused No.4)

and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) by giving them benefit of doubt.

As regards the appellants, the High Court, vide impugned

judgment, opined that the evidence on record clearly established

their involvement in the commission of the offence and causing

death of Mohar Pal by inflicting knife blow injuries to which he

eventually succumbed.

5. Resultantly, the appellants, Rohtas (Accused No.1) and

Surender Singh (Accused No.2) have assailed the finding of guilt

recorded against them by way of this appeal, arising from special

leave petition.  

6. Neither the State nor the complainant had challenged the

acquittal of Rajender (Accused No.3) and Billu (Accused No.5) by

the Trial Court nor the acquittal of Roop Chand (Accused No.4)

and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) by the High Court.   Their

acquittal has become final.  

7. In the present appeal, the assail is based essentially on the

argument that both the Courts below have misread or

misappreciated the evidence on record.   The evidence of Bishan

Singh (PW­1) and Baljit Singh (PW­2) was unreliable and was an

6

attempt to falsely implicate the appellants.   It is urged that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

even against the appellants.  According to the appellants, the real

and core facts have not been properly investigated and the

prosecution’s case is replete with several deficiencies such as :­

“(i) No seizure list  of clothes of deceased made by IO;  

(ii) Blood  group of  deceased  was  not  ascertained, hence no link was established between blood found on alleged kurta and blood stained earth with the blood of the deceased. Thus the prosecution has totally failed to establish the link between blood found on the seized articles and blood of the deceased;  

(iii) Prosecution though allegedly recovered the alleged knife and sent it to FSL, but it did not produce the said knife in the Court  nor got  it exhibited,  besides there  were  no  blood  stains, hence the recovered knife cannot be connected with this crime;

(iv) Shirt was seized as per recovery memo Ex. PB, but Kurta was replaced while sending it to FSL;

(v) Kurta if worn by the deceased while he was injured by knife, must have cut signs but there was none;

(vi) No Independent Panchas (Recovery witness) examined by the prosecution;  

(vii) The IO has miserably failed to show in the Sketch plan Ex PH as  to  from which place or places, trail of blood was there as per FIR and alleged blood recovered, since in the alleged first attack by appellants the deceased was on motor cycle,  which he left  and  tried to run away by making noise “mar diya mar diya” and thereafter

7

he  was  knived  at least two to three times  by Roop Chand and Devi;

(viii) No Independent witness examined either for the occurance or for the alleged Recovery and Inquest Report;

(ix) The most important and valuable witnesses i.e. Anil and Ved Prakash were withheld by the prosecution, who also participated in the earlier village incident @ 6.30 pm and got injured;

(x) Prosecution did not examine any eye witness of the incident which occurred in the village at about 6.30 pm on 25/04/1998, which was shown as motive for the present incident allegedly @ 8.30 pm.

(xi) Prosecution purposely withheld MLR of the deceased which was proved by the defence through DW­2 and on the said MLR and injuries sustained by Moharpal, Ved Prakash & Anil, there was a cross case through the FIR lodged by injured Ved Prakash u/s 323/324/506/149 r/w 148 IPC  at  PS  Sadar,  Case  was tried  by Judicial Magistrate 1st  Class, Palwal, and the accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 24/01/2007;

(xii) Sketch plan Ex PH does not show as to where motorcycle  was  thrown,  where  deceased threw away his clothes, where the witnesses PW­1, PW­2  and their  Associates  were standing and from which place body of the deceased was lifted and brought to the Hospital.   Hence the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the place of occurrence with the commission of offence;

(xiii) In this case FIR appears to be concocted, fabricated and recorded and after consultations etc.   It appears that FIR was lodged only after Inquest report where the time of death was recorded as 11.50 AM on the dictates of PW­1 and also there would have been fully disclosed genesis  of the  crime,  names of the assailants, name of the weapon and names of the witnesses

8

etc, which are completely missing in the Inquest report.

(xiv) There is the variance  between the  alleged FIR and report of IO for registering case;

(xv) Non­seizure of Motor Cycle;

(xvi) Non production of Anil and Ved Prakash as witnesses and various other irregularities  and serious lapses of the Investigation including improper  statement  of IO PW­6 which entitles benefit of doubt to the appellants.”

8. According to the appellants, the Trial Court and the High

Court  have  completely  glossed over the  glaring infirmities  and

foundational defects of the prosecution which were fatal, and in

any  case, the  appellants  deserved  similar  benefit of  doubt  as

given to other accused persons by the Trial Court and then by

the High Court.   The role of the other accused persons spoken

about by the prosecution witnesses is no different than that

ascribed to the appellants.  Accordingly, it is urged that the

appellants be acquitted as  the prosecution has  failed  to prove

their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in any case, they should

be given benefit  of  doubt  as is  given  to  accused Roop Chand

(Accused No.4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) by the High Court.

9

9. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the reasons

recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court to distinguish the

case of the appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender Singh

(Accused No.2), who have been named by the prosecution

witnesses, and because there is clinching evidence on record to

establish their guilt.  It is urged that there is no deficiency in the

investigation nor in the evidence produced before the Court

which commended the Trial Court as well as the High Court to

record finding of guilt against the appellants.  It cannot be said to

be inadequate in any manner.   On the other hand, it is evident

that the accused persons took contradictory plea by first

asserting that Mohar Pal sustained injuries during the fight

between two groups in the earlier incident which had occurred at

6.30 p.m. on the same evening.   Having realised that the said

plea cannot be substantiated by them, alternative plea was taken

that the incident in question did not occur near the Government

hospital and the injuries suffered by Mohar Pal were sustained at

some other place near Anaj Mandi from where he was brought in

a three­wheeler to the hospital for being admitted for treatment.

However, no evidence was produced by the accused to

substantiate that fact.  It is urged by the State that just because

co­accused have been acquitted, that does not warrant grant of

10

same relief to the appellants despite the clinching evidence

against them about their role and the manner of commission of

offence by them.   The learned counsel for the State contended

that even if the State has not challenged the acquittal of other

accused persons, that by itself cannot be the basis to acquit the

appellants herein,  for there  is sufficient evidence against them

and has been produced by the prosecution to bring home their

guilt.  It is thus contended that the benefit given to other accused

by the High Court cannot be the basis to give similar benefit to

the appellants.   

10. It is  submitted  that the evidence of  Bishan Singh  (PW­1)

and Baljit Singh (PW­2), who were the eye­witnesses, cannot be

undermined, at least against the appellants before this Court.  It

is well  established position that the principle of  falsus  in uno,

falsus in omnibus  has no general applicability in India and the

Court is not debarred from separating the truth from the

falsehood and accepting a part of the evidence.   It is urged that

the appeal is devoid of merits and the same be dismissed.

11. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for the

appellants and Dr. Monika Gusain Advocate for the respondent

State.

11

12. It is well established position in law that this Court, while

entertaining an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136

of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, will not attempt to

reappreciate the evidence on record unless the decision of the

Trial  Court  or the  High  Court is shown  to  have  committed  a

manifest error of law or procedure or the conclusion reached by

the Courts below is, on the face of it, perverse.   Merely because

another view on the same evidence is possible, that cannot be the

basis to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Courts

below much less concurrent finding of facts.   (See  Duli Chand

vs. Delhi Administration1; Mst. Dalbir Kaur & Ors. vs. State

of Punjab2;  Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel & Ors. vs.  State of

Gujarat3; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar4;

and  Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors.  vs.  State of

U.P.5).

1 (1975) 4 SCC 649

2 (1976) 4 SCC 158

3 (JT 1999 (9) SC 319

4 JT 2002 (4) SC 62

5 JT 2006 (1) SC 428

12

13. Despite this settled position, we may venture to wade

through the evidence on record to reassure ourselves as to

whether the Trial  Court and the  High  Court have committed

manifest error bordering on perversity or error apparent on the

face of record. As regards the role of the appellants, Rohtas

(Accused  No.1) and  Surender  Singh (Accused  No.2), the  Trial

Court  analysed  the testimonies  of  eye­witnesses  Bishan Singh

(PW­1) and Baljit Singh (PW­2) and found them to be natural and

trustworthy.  The Trial Court, observed as follows :­

“20.  ………………… Both  of them have stated that in the incident which had taken place in the village, Anil and Ved Parkash from their side had received injuries and that in that connection they had brought them to General Hospital Palwal where Mohar Pal arrived at his motor cycle at 8.30 p.m. and that when Mohar Pal left for Anaj Mandi, Palwal for bringing some money from some commission agent, then he was way laid by the accused persons and then caused injuries by means of knives. No suggestion was given to these PWs that Mohar Pal had received injuries along with Anil and Ved Prakash in the village. They were rather given the suggestions that Baljit (PW­2) and Mohar Pal had gone to Anaj Mandi from the village after the incident had taken place there and both of them had consumed liquor. They were further given the suggestion that Mohar Pal had received injuries in the Anaj Mandi Palwal and Baljit had brought him in a rickshaw for being admitted in the nursing home of Dr. Lokesh which was situated in the vicinity of General Hospital Palwal and when Mohar Pal died then taking undue advantage of his death, this false story was coined implicating the accused. They  were further given the suggestion that Mohar Pal had received injuries from sharp edged railings of the kitchen garden of the commission agent to whom he had gone. No suggestion at all was given that Mohar Pal was rendered injured for the incident that took place in the evening in the village. Thus, the plea that the accused party caused injuries to Mohar Pal in the right of private defence is absolutely baseless.  21. It is true that in the FIR No.152 dated 28/4/1998 vide Ex. DB recorded at Police Station Sadar Palwal against the

13

complainant party, it was mentioned that Anil, Ved Prakash and Mohar  Pal were caused injuries in  defence. This first information report was lodged by Rajinder accused. However, no reliance can be placed upon this version as the same came into existence after the death of Mohar Pal had taken place. A perusal of the Fir Ex. DB shows that the same came to be recorded on the basis of rapat No.5 dated 26.1.1998 at 9 a.m. By that time, Mohar Pal had expired and to us allegation that he had (sic) been caused injuries in the incident of 25.4.1998 at 6.30  p.m. in the village cannot be given any credence. Morever, it is well established that the FIR is not a substantive evidence by itself. The same can be used only for the purpose of contradicting  or corroborating  a  particular  versions.  The accused have not examined any witness in their defence who could depose that Mohar Pal had been caused injuries by the accused party in their right of private defence in the incident that took place in the village.”

The Trial Court, further observed :­

“But in the case this Judgment does not help to the accused in any manner because there is no whisper of suggestion even in  the cross  examination of  Bishan Singh and Baljit  Singh PWs that Mohar Pal had been cause injuries in the incident which took place on 25.4.1998 evening in the village.”

The Trial Court again observed :­

“24. It is true that  Bishan Singh (PW­1)  Baljit (PW­2)  Ratti Chand, Ved Prakash and Anil could not case effective resistance when Mohar Pal was assaulted by the accused within their sight (sic). But that by itself is no ground to paint their statements with black color. Incident after all had taken place near General Hospital, Palwal as the investigating officer ASI  Gian  Singh  also lifted  blood stained earth from  there. Presence  of these  persons there  was natural  as they  must have come to obtain treatment for Anil and Ved Parkash, who had received injuries in the prior altercation that took place in the village.

 ……….. In  the present  case, the  incident  appears to  have taken place all of a sudden near the hospital. It might have lasted only 2­3 minutes, Bishan Singh, Baljit Singh and thus it is  not  surprising that  they could not  effectively intervene (sic) by chasing the accused.”

14

The High Court,  on reappreciation of  the evidence,  once again

observed as follows :­

“PW­1 Bishan Singh  and PW 2  Baljit  Singh  can be safely relied upon about Mohar Pal having been assaulted in the occurrence at 8.30 PM.   Contention that there was delay in FIR or that the FIR was ante­ timed or that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed, based only on the ground that in the inquest report, number of the FIR and names of the FIR and names of the accused were not  mentioned, has no merit.  Statement of Bishan Singh PW 1 is duly recorded in the inquest report and entire version given by him in the FIR including presence of PW 2 Baljit Singh finds mention therein.  Reading of a part of the statement separately recorded that  he identified the dead body of which post mortem was being done, as statement recorded later is not justified.  Testimony of PW 1 Bishan Singh and PW 2 Baljit Singh cannot be rejected but has to be carefully appreciated by accepting that part which may be clearly reliable and by not accepting the part which may not be safe to be relied upon.  Role of each accused has to be carefully considered.

According to the version given  by  PWs,  when Mohar Pal had left for the Anaz Mandi on motor cycle, he was stopped by the accused.  Rohtas and Surender, gave one knife blow each in the stomach of Mohar Pal. We do not find any reason to reject this part of the version with regard to Rohtas and Surender.   Rohtas and Surender are sons of Shiv Singh, who according to the defence,  were  injured  in the earlier incident.  A knife has been recovered from Rohtas.  Opening of the attack by Rohtas and Surender could have been easily noticed by Bishan Singh PW1 and PW 2 Baljit Singh, whose presence on the spot is established by prompt lodging of the FIR.  Mere fact that their names are not mentioned in the MLR, does not create any doubt.  In the MLR, it has not been mentioned as to who brought the injured to the hospital.   The fact that the injured was described as having died, instead of having been injured, is not a major discrepancy.  The injured died within half  an hour and immediately the police  was informed.  The I.O., recorded the statement of Bishan Singh PW 1 in the hospital itself soon after the death. FIR was formally registered immediately at 12.45 AM in the night and copy was received by the Magistrate in the night itself by 4 AM.  Case of the prosecution is

15

to be examined a whole and any minor discrepancy cannot be taken in isolation.   Mere fact that the said witnesses did not intervene to save the deceased, is of no effect.   The witnesses were at some distance and within  minutes, the accused caused injuries to the deceased.  The witnesses had, thus, no opportunity to intervene.   Discrepancy of the I.O.  in not recovering the  motor  cycle  or  not showing the  source  of light, does not create any suspicion about the version of the prosecution.”

14. After perusing the evidence of Bishan Singh (PW­1), we have

no hesitation in taking the view that the concurrent finding of

fact recorded  by the two  Courts  below  needs  no interference.

Bishan Singh (PW­1) in his examination­in­chief has deposed as

follows :­

“At about (sic) 8.30 p.m. on the same day I, Rati Chand and Baljit  were talking at the gate of  G.H. Palwal.  My  brother Mohar  Pal also came there on a motor cycle. I then sent Mohar Pal back for bringing money from a commission agent in the Anaz Mandi, Palwal.

Mohar Pal must have crossed hardly a distance of 10 paces that the accused Rohtas, Surender, Billu, Rajender, Roopi  and Devi  present in the  Court  came  there  and  they made to stop the Mohar Pal’s motor cycle.   Rohtas and Surender then gave one knife blow each on the abdomen of Mohar Pal.   Leaving his motor cycle, Mohar Pal then started running and raised the alarm of mar­diya mardiya.  Billu and Rajender then caught  him and Roopi  accused gave  a  knife blow on his back and Devi accused gave another knife blow on his abdomen with the result that Mohar Pal died at the spot. When I, Rati Chand, Ved Parkash and Anil etc.   started running for saving Mohar Pal, then the accused persons ran away.”

15. He has been extensively cross­examined but the cross­

examination does not make any dent with regard to his

16

statement in the examination­in­chief that Rohtas (Accused No.1)

and Surender Singh (Accused No.2) gave knife blow each on the

stomach of Mohar Pal and caused the fatal injuries.  Dr. Ramesh

Leekha (PW­5) has spoken about the injuries in his evidence and

the  same also can be  noticed  from the  post­mortem report  of

Mohar Pal that he had sustained the following injuries :­

“1. Incised wound 3 x 0.25 cm, 8 cm above and lateral to  umbilicus. On the opening of the abdomen, the middle log of liver was found cut badly with huge quantity of blood in the abdominal cavity. Superficial and deep facie with omentum and peritoneum was cut through and through.  

2. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm which was 2 cm above and lateral to umbilicus underlying superficial and deep facia and omentum was cut on the left side of the abdomen.  

3. Reddish abrasion 8 cm long and linear in shape and 8 cm above and lateral to the left side of umbilicus.

4. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 cm  n the left supra scapular region underlying muscles were cut with no injury to lung or pleura.”

XXX   XXX  XXX

VI­REMARKS BY MEDICAL OFFICER

In my opinion the cause of death in this case in shock  and haemorrhage (sic)  as  a result  of injuries sustained by the deceased, particularly No.1 which alone in sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All injuries are ante mortem in nature.”

16. Suffice it to observe that the cross­examination of Bishan

Singh (PW­1) does not take the matter any further for the

17

appellants, as is rightly held by the two Courts below.   Same is

the position with regard to the evidence of Baljit Singh (PW­2).

Even he has plainly mentioned about the manner in which

Mohar Pal was stopped by all the accused persons when he was

riding his motorcycle and immediately thereafter Rohtas (Accused

No.1) and Surender Singh (Accused No.2) inflicted knife blows on

his stomach one after the other.   The fact that similar role has

been ascribed  to  Roop Chand  (Accused No.4)  and Dev Kumar

(Accused No.6) but the High Court acquitted them by giving

benefit of doubt cannot be the basis to undermine the quality of

evidence which has already come on record.  We are not dilating

on the correctness of the view so taken by the High Court  qua

those accused as neither the State nor the complainant has

assailed the finding recorded by the High Court in that regard.

That does not mean that a wrong relief given to co­accused

should also be given to the appellants against whom clinching

evidence  has come on record about the  manner in  which  the

offence was committed by them.  

17. Reverting to the exposition of this Court in State of U.P. vs.

Moti Ram & Ors.6, it turns on the facts of that case. That case

6 (1990) 4 SCC 389

18

was an appeal against acquittal and the quality of evidence was

not reassuring and warranting a finding of guilt against the

acquitted accused.  Even in the case of Balaka Singh & Ors. vs.

The  State  of  Punjab7, this  Court  was  dealing  with evidence

against the appellants and four accused named along with the

appellants therein, which was so  inextricably mixed up that  it

was not possible to separate one from the other.   

18. In the present case, however, the evidence of Bishan Singh

(PW­1) and Baljit Singh (PW­2), who are the eye witnesses, has

mentioned about the events as unfolded.   First, all the accused

persons obstructed Mohar Pal who was riding a motorcycle.

Immediately after he was stopped, both the appellants inflicted

knife  blows on the stomach of  Mohar Pal  one after the other.

This role of the appellants is distinct.   Thereafter  Mohar Pal

attempted to flee away from the spot when he was stopped by the

other accused persons and two of them inflicted knife blows one

after the other.  The events, therefore, can be segregated.   

19. So far as the second event is concerned, the Trial Court and

the High Court gave benefit of doubt to the concerned accused.

7 (1975) 4 SCC 511

19

In that sense, the appellants are not concerned with that part of

the event.   As aforementioned, even if we do not agree with the

approach of the High Court in absolving Accused Nos.4 and 6, we

refrain from dilating on the said approach of the High Court as

neither the State nor the complainant has assailed the acquittal

of those  accused.   In any case,  wrong  benefit given to those

accused cannot enure to the advantage of the appellants against

whom clear, truthful and unassailable evidence is forthcoming.

For, neither the presence of Bishan Singh (PW­1) and Baljit Singh

(PW­2) can be doubted nor their evidence can be discarded on the

specious ground that they are related to the deceased Mohar Pal,

and are therefore interested witnesses.   

20. Indubitably, just because the witnesses are related cannot

be the basis to discard their evidence, if it is otherwise natural

and truthful.   Their evidence has commended to the Trial Court

as well as the High Court as truthful and we see no reason to

deviate from that concurrent view taken by the Courts below.  It

is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and

then to arrive at a finding of guilt of an accused or otherwise,

notwithstanding the fact that evidence is  found to be deficient

qua another accused named in the same offence.   The maxim

20

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus  has not received general

acceptance in India  nor  has this  maxim  come to occupy the

status of rule of law.  This has been restated in Rizan & Anr. vs.

State of Chhattisgarh8. In paragraph 12 of the said decision,

the Court observed, thus :­

“12.  Stress  was  laid  by  the  accused­appellants  on  the non­acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case. In essence, prayer is to apply the principle of  falsus in uno falsus in omnibus  (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. 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 co­accused 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 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.) 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

8 (2003) 2 SCC 661

21

have been convicted must also be acquitted.  It is always open to a court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab.)  The doctrine  is  a dangerous one, specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a deadstop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum 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  Sohrab  v.  State of  M.P.  and  Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar.) An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. 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 the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab.) As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan  v.  Kalki normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of  memory due to lapse  of time,  due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of  a  normal person.  Courts have to  label  the category  into which a discrepancy  may be  categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a  party’s case,  material  discrepancies  do so.  These aspects were highlighted recently in  Krishna Mochi  v. State of Bihar and Gangadhar Behera v.  State of Orissa. Accusations have been clearly established against the accused­appellants in the case at hand. The courts below have categorically indicated the distinguishing features in

22

evidence so far as the acquitted and convicted accused are concerned.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. In another decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh

vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.9, it is held that minor discrepancies in

the statement of witnesses of trivial nature cannot be a ground to

reject evidence as a whole.  The Court relied upon the exposition

of  Brahm Swaroop & Anr.  vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh10.   In

paragraph 32 of the said decision, the Court observed, thus :­

“32.  It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not prompt the court to reject  the evidence  in  its entirety.  “Irrelevant  details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.” Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused.  Thus,  an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of  witnesses. (See  State of  U.P.  v.  M.K. Anthony,  State of Rajasthan  v.  Om Prakash,  State  v. Saravanan and Prithu v. State of H.P.)”

9 (2017) 14 SCC 614

10 (2011) 6 SCC 288

23

22. The so­called deficiencies pointed out by the appellants in

the investigation  or the  prosecution case, in  our  opinion,  are

insignificant  and  trivial  and cannot  be the  basis to reject the

whole evidence of Bishan Singh (PW­1) and Baljit Singh (PW­2)

which is corroborated by the other evidence in the form of

medical reports and recovery of human blood stained soil from

the spot near the hospital where Mohar Pal was assaulted by the

accused.  The fact that the  blood  group  of the  human blood

stained soil  cannot be ascertained, can be no basis to discard

that  piece of  evidence.  Even the recovery of  weapon used by

Rohtas (Accused No.1) during the commission of the offence

reinforces the role and involvement of the appellants in the

commission of the crime.   The quality substantive evidence on

record clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants.   

23. In a recent decision in Dilawar Singh & Ors. vs. State of

Haryana11, the Court restated that while analysing the evidence

of eye witnesses, it must be borne in mind that there is bound to

be variations and difference in the behaviour of the witnesses or

their reactions from situation to situation and individual to

individual.   There cannot be uniformity in the reaction of

11 (2015) 1 SCC 737

24

witnesses.   The Court must not decipher the evidence on

unrealistic basis.  There can be no hard and fast rule about the

uniformity in human reaction.   The difference in the statements

of the prosecution witnesses about the conditions of Mohar Pal

when he was admitted in the hospital, therefore, does not take

the matter any further especially when the medical reports

clearly indicate that  he  was admitted  in the  hospital in  semi­

conscious state and was declared dead by the doctor only

thereafter.   

24. As regards, the delay in registration of FIR, that aspect has

also been considered by the Trial Court and the finding recorded

by the Trial Court rejecting that defence plea found favour with

the High Court. We see no reason to deviate from the conclusion

so recorded that there was no delay in registration of FIR in the

facts of the present case.  The significance of registration of FIR

without loss of time need not  be underscored.  This  Court in

State of Andhra Pradesh  vs.  M. Madhusudhan Rao12,  while

dealing  with similar arguments, observed in  paragraph 30  as

follows :­

12 (2008) 15 SCC 582

25

“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report  not only gets bereft  of  the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its  veracity.  Therefore, it is  essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”

25. In the present case, there has been no delay as is evident

from the contemporaneous record.   Mohar Pal was admitted in

hospital immediately after the incident and was examined by Dr.

Ramesh.   Mohar Pal was declared dead at 11.00 p.m.   The City

Police Station was informed by the doctor at 11.30 p.m.

Thereafter, Bishan Singh (PW­1) complained to ASI Gian Singh

(PW­5) near hospital building and finally the FIR was registered

at 0015 hrs. on the night between 25th and 26th April, 1998.  In

Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors.13,

This Court had observed as follows :­

“22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court  has  to look  for  a plausible  explanation  for  such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that  a frustrated litigant  who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with

13 (2010) 8 SCC 775

26

mala  fide  intentions or  the ulterior  motive of  wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants  should  not  be  permitted to  give  vent to their frustrations by cheaply  invoking the  jurisdiction of the criminal  court.  The court  proceedings  ought  not to  be permitted to degenerate into a  weapon  of  harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private  and personal  grudge  and  to  enmesh the  other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Vide  Chandrapal Singh  v.  Maharaj Singh;  State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.)”

26. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the

view taken by the Trial Court that there was no delay in

registration of the FIR in the fact situation of the present case.

27. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Trial

Court and affirmed by the High Court that the defence had taken

self­contradictory stand.   First, it was asserted that Mohar Pal

sustained injuries in the first incident  which had occurred at

6.30 p.m. on the same evening.  However, no evidence in support

of that plea was forthcoming.  Then, the alternative plea taken by

the defence was that  Mohar Pal  was, in  fact, injured at  some

other place near Anaj Mandi and was brought in a three­wheeler

to the hospital.  Even this plea of the accused has been held to be

figment of imagination and without any evidence in support

thereof.   On the other hand, the prosecution has produced

27

evidence in the form of human blood soiled mud from the spot

near the hospital where the incident in question had occurred as

stated by Bishan Singh (PW­1) and Baljit Singh (PW­2).  

28. Even the fact that the accused have been acquitted in the

cross­cases filed with regard to the first incident which took place

at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening will not take the matter any

further for the  appellants.  That was an  independent incident

whereas the  finding of guilt  recorded against the appellants  is

concerning the incident which had taken place at 8.30 p.m. near

the Government Hospital,  Palwal as proved by the prosecution

witnesses.   In  fact, the  incident at 8.30 p.m. was the counter

blast of the fight which had taken place between two groups at

6.30 p.m. and the previous enmity between them.  The fact that

there is no evidence about the previous enmity and that no

evidence is produced by the prosecution in that regard, in our

view, cannot be the basis to reverse the concurrent view taken by

two Courts below ­ recording finding of guilt against the

appellants for commission of offence to assault Mohar Pal near

the  Government  Hospital,  Palwal  at  around 8.30 p.m. on 25th

April, 1998.

28

29. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is

warranted in this  appeal  and  we  are  disposed to  dismiss the

same.   Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.   The bail bonds of

the appellants stand cancelled.   The appellants shall surrender

within four weeks from today failing which, the local police

station must take necessary action against the appellants in

accordance with law.

………………………..,…..J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)   

………………………..,…..J. (Dinesh Maheshwari)

New Delhi; November 5, 2019