Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2141 - SC - Indian LawsExaggeration of the issue - doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) - Setting out fire on the houses of IPF members, including the party leader - assault of IPF members and breaking into the houses of the locality and destroying household articles - stealing money - snatching a pair of gold earrings - HELD THAT:- It is a well settled position of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments or exaggerations. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means "false in one thing, false in everything" has been held to be inapplicable in the Indian scenario, where the tendency to exaggerate is common. This Court has endorsed the inapplicability of the doctrine in several decisions, such as Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1957 (2) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT], Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [1964 (3) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT], Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, [2003 (7) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT], Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2004 (2) TMI 742 - SUPREME COURT] and KAMESHWAR SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [2018 (4) TMI 1965 - SUPREME COURT]. In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, [2002 (4) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT], this Court highlighted the dangers of applying the doctrine in the Indian scenario holding that 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. It is not uncommon for witnesses to make exaggerations during the course of evidence. But merely because there are certain exaggerations, improvements and embellishments, the entire prosecution story should not be doubted. It is found from the records that the versions of the eye witnesses cannot be said to be untrustworthy, especially in light of the observation of this Court in Masalti's case [1964 (5) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT]. There are as many as 24 injured eye witnesses in the case and their presence cannot be doubted. In this situation, it is found that the High Court has not applied its judicial mind in determining whether the judgment of the trial court was perverse inasmuch as the entire body of evidence was discarded, simply on the basis that some of the witnesses had deposed for the first time before the Court. The High Court has not at all assigned any cogent reason for reaching its conclusion. The revisional jurisdiction must be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances, where there is a gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality or perversity in the judgment of the lower court. Interference would be warranted only if there is a manifest illegality in the judgment of the lower court. But in the matter on hand, because of non-furnishing of valid reasons by the Trial Court, while coming to its conclusion, there is manifest illegality, and thus, the view taken by the High Court cannot be termed as reasonable - the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court has not been properly exercised by the High Court. The High Court should not have proceeded casually while affirming the judgment of the trial Court. Having regard to the material on record and having regard to the magnitude of the offence, the High Court should have been more serious while considering the revision petition. The High Court has failed to consider whether the Trial Court discarded material evidence in the form of eye-witness testimony on the issues of murder, attempt to murder and grievous hurt and completely overlooked evidence on other charges such as unlawful assembly and house-burning - the High Court has not given due consideration to the evidence on record to arrive at a reasoned conclusion and has thus failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in accordance with established principles. In our opinion, it would be appropriate for the High Court to undertake proper consideration of the material of the matter once again with due application of the judicial mind to find out as to whether the trial Court's order has caused gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality or perversity. Appeal allowed.
|