Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2003 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (7) TMI 704 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of Witnesses
2. Non-explanation of Injuries on Accused
3. Acquittal of Co-accused and its Impact
4. Inaction of Witnesses during the Incident

Summary:

1. Credibility of Witnesses:
The appellants argued that the prosecution's case was vulnerable due to the lack of independent witnesses, as only the deceased's son and a close relative were examined. The Court held that relationship does not affect the credibility of a witness. It was noted that a close relation would not typically conceal the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The Court cited precedents such as *Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Masalti v. State of U.P.*, emphasizing that the testimony of relatives should not be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. The Court reiterated that each case must be judged on its own facts and that the plea of false implication requires a careful approach and analysis of evidence.

2. Non-explanation of Injuries on Accused:
The appellants contended that the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused should lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case. The Court referred to *Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar* and *Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar*, stating that non-explanation of injuries may indicate that the prosecution's evidence is not wholly true. However, the Court clarified that this is not an invariable rule and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the evidence is clear, cogent, and credible, the mere non-explanation of injuries does not necessarily lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case.

3. Acquittal of Co-accused and its Impact:
The appellants argued that since two of the accused were acquitted on similar evidence, the remaining accused should also be acquitted. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in India. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and that the conviction of an accused can be maintained even if other co-accused are acquitted, provided the evidence against the convicted accused is sufficient and credible.

4. Inaction of Witnesses during the Incident:
The appellants questioned the credibility of the witnesses (PWs 9 and 10) due to their inaction during the incident. The Court noted that the witnesses were unarmed and the accused were armed with deadly weapons. The Court held that the instinct of self-preservation can be a dominant instinct and that the inaction of the witnesses in such a situation cannot be a ground for discarding their evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence against the accused-appellants was credible and sufficient. The appeals were deemed without merit and were accordingly dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates