TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Allahabad High Court against the appellant only and the judgment of acquittal in his case was reversed and he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life . Against the judgment of the High Court the Appellant has brought this appeal by Special Leave. 2. The facts which have given rise to the appeal are that Sabir was murdered on May 11, 1951 at about 6.30 p.m The first information report was made by Qudrat Ullah the other accused at 6.45 p.m the same day i.e within about 15 minutes of the occurrence. The prosecution case was that there was an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant near the shop of the first informant, Qudrat Ullah. The cause of the quarrel was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct other witnesses. In this case, therefore, it is not evidence. 3. The Sub-Inspector went to the spot, started investigation and arrested the appellant the same evening at his house. The post-mortem examination of the deceased showed injuries on the person of the deceased and, according to the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the punctured wound in the chest, causing injuries to the lungs and these injuries could be caused with a sharp-edged weapon. 4. The appellant and the deceased both belong to a sect of Jogis. Evidence discloses that the deceased and the appellant were quite friendly with each other, and so were the deceased and Qudrat Ullah, who is a butcher and had a shop which is a part of his house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no enmity between him and Sabir and he had no motive to get him killed by the respondent. It does not at all appear probable that after abetting the murder of Sabir he at once took him on a rickshaw to the hospital and from there went at once to the police station and lodged a report against the respondent. This conduct of Qudrat Ullah is so inconsistent with the part said to have been played by him in the occurrence that we have little hesitation in rejecting the evidence about the part played by him. 6. The High Court, however, accepted the testimony of the eyewitnesses as against the appellant's guilt and observed: We are satisfied that the prosecution has fully established the case against the respondent. There is not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till otherwise proved that it has become necessary to reiterate the rule stated by eminent authorities ... that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to any statutory exception 1. 9. It was next contended that the witnesses had falsely implicated Qudrat Ullah and because of that the court should have rejected the testimony of these witnesses as against the appellant also. The well-known maxim falsus in une falsus in omnibus was relied upon by the appellant. The argument raised was that because the witnesses who had also deposed against Qudrat Ullah by saying that he had handed over the knife to the appellant had not been believed by the courts below as against him, the High Court should not have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roval to any such controversial rule which has been termed as worthless , absolutely false as a maxim of life and in practice pernicious in works of undoubted authority on the law of evidence. 13. The High Court was not unmindful of what the witnesses stated as to Qudrat Ullah's part in the commission of the offence and having taken that into consideration, it said: While the learned Sessions Judge was right in acquitting Qudrat Ullah, he was completely wrong in acquitting the respondent of whose guilt there was not the slightest doubt. The direct evidence made out a clear case against him and there was no sound reason for disregarding it. 14. After discussing the evidence of the witnesses and the discrepancies pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
