9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;) to be in order. Consequentially, sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine proposed were affirmed. 2. Eight persons faced trial including the appellant for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 450 IPC. The Trial Court held that the accusations were not established. Against rest of the seven while it was established only in respect of appellant relating to the offence for which he has been found guilty. The accused-appellant was made to undergo imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. The order of conviction was questioned by the appellant before the High Court. The State also questioned the legality of the acquittal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons were arrested. 4. The accused persons pleaded innocence and also took definite stand that on account of enmity and rivalry prosecution witnesses who claimed to be the eyewitnesses and to have sustained injuries assaulted the accused persons and in any event they have acted in exercise of right of private defence. They also stated that true genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and the occurrence did not take place at the places indicated by the prosecution. 5. The Trial Court found that the prosecution has not really come out with actual scenario. According to prosecution the occurrence took place at 3 different places. But the evidence was to the contrary. The occurrence took place at a place different from where it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convicting him. 8. As a rule of universal application it cannot be said that when a portion of the prosecution evidence is discarded as unworthy of credence, there cannot be any conviction. It is always open to the Court to differentiate between an accused who has been convicted and those who have been acquitted. (See Guru Charan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1956CriLJ827 and Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 2003CriLJ3876. The maxim Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is merely a rule of caution. As has been indicated by this Court in sucha Singh's case (supra), in terms of felicitous metaphor, an attempt has to be made to separate grain from the chaff; truth from falsehood. When the prosecution is able to establish its cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came there and assaulted him and others. The Trial Court found that the informant was not a reliable witness, because he even denied to have given the dying declaration, when it was established by the statement of DW-1 that the statement was recorded by him. Injured witnesses Tijji Bai (PW-6), Parvati Bai (PW-10), Siya Bai (PW-13), and Khilan Singh (PW-4) who claimed to be eyewitnesses had given varying versions and their evidence was found unacceptable about the actual occurrence. Their statements in Court were at great variance from what they had stated during investigation. It was also noticed by the Trial Court that from the evidence of the informant (PW-14) it was clear that he had seen actual assault on the deceased. The evidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
