2018 (4) TMI 1965 - SC - Indian Laws

Brutal murder of a person with a view to prohibit such person from deposing before the Court in a case against his assailant - dead body was cut into two pieces, and thrown at two different places, in order to destroy the evidence - Existence of common object or not - Doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). The Accused were charge-sheeted, and tried, convicted and sentenced. However, in the meanwhile, two of the Accused died. HELD THAT - From the entire evidence, including the ocular testimony of PWs 6, 11 and 14, in our considered opinion, it can be concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against the Accused-Kameshwar Singh. However, omnibus and vague evidence is forthcoming as against the other Appellants. The incident had taken place abutting the cattle shed of Nagina Koiri, Accused No. 7. Certain articles were seized from the cattle shed of Nagina Koiri. Two iron rods from the window shutter were found to be cut, which were presumably used for the commission of the offence - It is no doubt true that the evidence on record creates suspicion in the mind of the Court about the participation of the other Accused, but any amount of suspicion may not take the place of proof. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not being used in India. Virtually, it is not applicable to the Indian scenario. Hence, the said maxim is treated as neither a sound Rule of law nor a Rule of practice in India. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. Efforts should be made to find the truth. This is the very object for which Courts are created - It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limits to find out the truth. It means, on one hand that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the Accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the evidence. The evidence on record points towards the guilt of Kameshwar Singh. It is no doubt true that one man alone could not have committed such a ghastly crime by separating the dead body into two pieces. He must have taken the assistance of others. The prosecution has come out with seven names including Kameshwar Singh, but so far as the other Accused are concerned, particularly in respect of the other Appellants (except Kameshwar Singh), except the omnibus and vague evidence that they were also present and they also joined hands with the Accused-Kameshwar Singh, no other specific and reliable material has come on record. Common object is also not proved - the judgment of conviction passed against the Accused Kameshwar Singh needs to be confirmed, and the same is hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeal filed by the Accused-Kameshwar Singh stands dismissed, and the judgment dated 24.05.1988 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 192/117 of 1977/1983, convicting and sentencing the Accused-Kameshwar Singh to life imprisonment Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment Under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, as confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment, stands confirmed. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
3. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
4. Motive for the commission of the crime.
5. Applicability of the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Conviction:
The appeals challenge the High Court's judgment affirming the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 and an additional three years under Section 201. The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentencing of Kameshwar Singh, finding the evidence against him compelling and reliable. However, the Court acquitted the other appellants due to lack of specific and reliable evidence, granting them the benefit of doubt.

2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of three eyewitnesses: PW6-Shambhu Singh, PW11-Surajbansi Kuer, and PW14-Muneshwar Singh. The Court found their testimonies consistent, cogent, and reliable, particularly regarding the actions of Kameshwar Singh. Despite minor discrepancies and the artificiality in their conduct post-incident, the Court ruled that their reactions were natural given the circumstances and threats from the accused. The presence of these witnesses at the crime scene was corroborated by other evidence, including the seizure of a torch in working condition.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The FIR was lodged approximately 30 hours after the incident. The Court found the delay satisfactorily explained, considering the informant PW11 was an illiterate rural lady who faced threats from the accused. The Court noted that the informant's socio-economic background and the circumstances justified the delay, and it did not adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution's case.

4. Motive for the Commission of the Crime:
The motive was established through the testimony of PW9-Ravinder Nath Singh, an inspector of the Railway Protection Force. He testified that the deceased was a witness in two cases against Kameshwar Singh under the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. PW11 corroborated this by stating that Kameshwar Singh had threatened the deceased not to testify against him. This motive was deemed credible and supported the prosecution's case against Kameshwar Singh.

5. Applicability of the Maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus":
The Court reiterated that the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply in India. It emphasized the need to separate the grain from the chaff in witness testimonies. The Court scrutinized the evidence carefully, finding the core of the prosecution's case credible while dismissing the unreliable portions. This approach led to the conviction of Kameshwar Singh while acquitting the other appellants due to insufficient specific evidence against them.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the life imprisonment and additional three years' rigorous imprisonment for Kameshwar Singh under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court acquitted the other appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt due to lack of specific evidence. The decision underscores the importance of reliable eyewitness testimonies, satisfactory explanations for delays in lodging FIRs, and the careful scrutiny of evidence to separate credible facts from unreliable ones.