2002 (10) TMI 815 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC.
2. Alteration of conviction u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC to u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. Credibility of witnesses and the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus".
4. Application of Section 149 IPC and common object.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC:
The accused-appellants were convicted for offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC. Initially, they were also convicted u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC, which was later altered to u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution's version detailed an altercation on 31.12.1988, leading to the accused assaulting the deceased and his companions. The trial court convicted 15 out of 21 accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction of 10, acquitting the rest. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions.

2. Alteration of conviction u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC to u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC:
On the first occasion, the appellants were convicted u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC. However, this was altered to u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC in the second instance. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not properly analyzed the evidence and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. Upon re-evaluation, the High Court upheld the conviction of 10 accused and acquitted the others.

3. Credibility of witnesses and the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus":
The appellants argued that the main eye-witnesses were relatives of the deceased and belonged to the same political party, questioning their credibility. The Supreme Court reiterated that relationship alone does not discredit a witness. The principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) was deemed inapplicable. The Court emphasized that even if some evidence is deficient, the residue can still prove guilt. The Court also highlighted that discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessarily corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case.

4. Application of Section 149 IPC and common object:
The appellants contended that Section 149 IPC was inapplicable as specific roles were not attributed to each accused. The Supreme Court clarified that the emphasis is on the common object, not common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly with a common object suffices for liability u/s 149 IPC. The Court explained that the common object can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances surrounding the assembly. The Court found no substance in the plea that the evidence was insufficient to apply Section 149 IPC, affirming the convictions based on the established common object.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions of the accused-appellants u/s 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC, and u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court emphasized the credibility of witnesses, the inapplicability of the "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" principle, and the proper application of Section 149 IPC based on the common object of the unlawful assembly.