9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout 6.30 p.m. a quarrel had taken place between two groups. He was member of one of the groups whereas Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) was member of another group that had assaulted his brother Ved Prakash and nephew Anil Kumar. They had sustained injuries and were taken to Government Hospital, Palwal by Bishan Singh (PW-1), Rati Chand (father of Anil Kumar) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) for treatment. At about 8.30 p.m., when they were standing at the gate of Government Hospital Palwal, his brother Mohar Pal arrived there on a motorcycle. He was told to bring money from a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Palwal. When Mohar Pal was leaving towards Anaj Mandi, at a distance of about ten paces from the gate of the hospital, all the six Accused persons came from the front side and stopped his motorcycle. Soon thereafter, Appellants Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) both inflicted knife blows one after the other in the stomach of Mohar Pal. Immediately thereafter, Mohar Pal attempted to run away by raising alarm "mar diya, mar diya". Billu (Accused No. 5) and Rajender (Accused No. 3) caught hold of Mohar Pal and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) gave one knife blow in the abdomen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence on record, affirmed the finding of guilt against the Appellants Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) but acquitted Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) by giving them benefit of doubt. As regards the Appellants, the High Court, vide impugned judgment, opined that the evidence on record clearly established their involvement in the commission of the offence and causing death of Mohar Pal by inflicting knife blow injuries to which he eventually succumbed. 5. Resultantly, the Appellants, Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) have assailed the finding of guilt recorded against them by way of this appeal, arising from special leave petition. 6. Neither the State nor the complainant had challenged the acquittal of Rajender (Accused No. 3) and Billu (Accused No. 5) by the Trial Court nor the acquittal of Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) by the High Court. Their acquittal has become final. 7. In the present appeal, the assail is based essentially on the argument that both the Courts below have misread or misappre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent incident allegedly @ 8.30 pm. (xi) Prosecution purposely withheld MLR of the deceased which was proved by the defence through DW-2 and on the said MLR and injuries sustained by Moharpal, Ved Prakash & Anil, there was a cross case through the FIR lodged by injured Ved Prakash Under Section 323/324/506/149 r/w 148 Indian Penal Code at PS Sadar, Case was tried by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, and the Accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 24/01/2007; (xii) Sketch plan Ex PH does not show as to where motorcycle was thrown, where deceased threw away his clothes, where the witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and their Associates were standing and from which place body of the deceased was lifted and brought to the Hospital. Hence the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the place of occurrence with the commission of offence; (xiii) In this case FIR appears to be concocted, fabricated and recorded and after consultations etc. It appears that FIR was lodged only after Inquest report where the time of death was recorded as 11.50 AM on the dictates of PW-1 and also there would have been fully disclosed genesis of the crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere he was brought in a three-wheeler to the hospital for being admitted for treatment. However, no evidence was produced by the Accused to substantiate that fact. It is urged by the State that just because co-Accused have been acquitted, that does not warrant grant of same relief to the Appellants despite the clinching evidence against them about their role and the manner of commission of offence by them. The learned Counsel for the State contended that even if the State has not challenged the acquittal of other Accused persons, that by itself cannot be the basis to acquit the Appellants herein, for there is sufficient evidence against them and has been produced by the prosecution to bring home their guilt. It is thus contended that the benefit given to other Accused by the High Court cannot be the basis to give similar benefit to the Appellants. 10. It is submitted that the evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who were the eye-witnesses, cannot be undermined, at least against the Appellants before this Court. It is well established position that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no general applicability in India and the Court is not debarr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the village. They were rather given the suggestions that Baljit (PW-2) and Mohar Pal had gone to Anaj Mandi from the village after the incident had taken place there and both of them had consumed liquor. They were further given the suggestion that Mohar Pal had received injuries in the Anaj Mandi Palwal and Baljit had brought him in a rickshaw for being admitted in the nursing home of Dr. Lokesh which was situated in the vicinity of General Hospital Palwal and when Mohar Pal died then taking undue advantage of his death, this false story was coined implicating the Accused. They were further given the suggestion that Mohar Pal had received injuries from sharp edged railings of the kitchen garden of the commission agent to whom he had gone. No suggestion at all was given that Mohar Pal was rendered injured for the incident that took place in the evening in the village. Thus, the plea that the Accused party caused injuries to Mohar Pal in the right of private defence is absolutely baseless. 21. It is true that in the FIR No. 152 dated 28/4/1998 vide Ex. DB recorded at Police Station Sadar Palwal against the complainant party, it was mentioned that Anil, Ved Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh can be safely relied upon about Mohar Pal having been assaulted in the occurrence at 8.30 PM. Contention that there was delay in FIR or that the FIR was ante-timed or that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed, based only on the ground that in the inquest report, number of the FIR and names of the FIR and names of the Accused were not mentioned, has no merit. Statement of Bishan Singh PW 1 is duly recorded in the inquest report and entire version given by him in the FIR including presence of PW 2 Baljit Singh finds mention therein. Reading of a part of the statement separately recorded that he identified the dead body of which post mortem was being done, as statement recorded later is not justified. Testimony of PW 1 Bishan Singh and PW 2 Baljit Singh cannot be rejected but has to be carefully appreciated by accepting that part which may be clearly reliable and by not accepting the part which may not be safe to be relied upon. Role of each Accused has to be carefully considered. According to the version given by PWs, when Mohar Pal had left for the Anaz Mandi on motor cycle, he was stopped by the Accused. Rohtas and Surender, gave one knife blow eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach on the abdomen of Mohar Pal. Leaving his motor cycle, Mohar Pal then started running and raised the alarm of mar-diya mardiya. Billu and Rajender then caught him and Roopi Accused gave a knife blow on his back and Devi Accused gave another knife blow on his abdomen with the result that Mohar Pal died at the spot. When I, Rati Chand, Ved Parkash and Anil etc. started running for saving Mohar Pal, then the Accused persons ran away. 15. He has been extensively cross-examined but the cross-examination does not make any dent with regard to his statement in the examination-in-chief that Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) gave knife blow each on the stomach of Mohar Pal and caused the fatal injuries. Dr. Ramesh Leekha (PW-5) has spoken about the injuries in his evidence and the same also can be noticed from the post-mortem report of Mohar Pal that he had sustained the following injuries: 1. Incised wound 3 x 0.25 cm, 8 cm above and lateral to umbilicus. On the opening of the abdomen, the middle log of liver was found cut badly with huge quantity of blood in the abdominal cavity. Superficial and deep facie with omentum and peritoneum was cut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511, this Court was dealing with evidence against the Appellants and four Accused named along with the Appellants therein, which was so inextricably mixed up that it was not possible to separate one from the other. 18. In the present case, however, the evidence of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who are the eye witnesses, has mentioned about the events as unfolded. First, all the Accused persons obstructed Mohar Pal who was riding a motorcycle. Immediately after he was stopped, both the Appellants inflicted knife blows on the stomach of Mohar Pal one after the other. This role of the Appellants is distinct. Thereafter Mohar Pal attempted to flee away from the spot when he was stopped by the other Accused persons and two of them inflicted knife blows one after the other. The events, therefore, can be segregated. 19. So far as the second event is concerned, the Trial Court and the High Court gave benefit of doubt to the concerned Accused. In that sense, the Appellants are not concerned with that part of the event. As aforementioned, even if we do not agree with the approach of the High Court in absolving Accused Nos. 4 and 6, we refrain from dilatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a Rule of law. It is merely a Rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory Rule of evidence". (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.) Merely because some of the Accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate Accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab.) The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kumar and Ors. (2017) 14 SCC 614, it is held that minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses of trivial nature cannot be a ground to reject evidence as a whole. The Court relied upon the exposition of Brahm Swaroop and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 288. In paragraph 32 of the said decision, the Court observed, thus: 32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng recorded by the Trial Court rejecting that defence plea found favour with the High Court. We see no reason to deviate from the conclusion so recorded that there was no delay in registration of FIR in the facts of the present case. The significance of registration of FIR without loss of time need not be underscored. This Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582, while dealing with similar arguments, observed in paragraph 30 as follows: 30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. 25. In the present case, there has been no del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame evening. However, no evidence in support of that plea was forthcoming. Then, the alternative plea taken by the defence was that Mohar Pal was, in fact, injured at some other place near Anaj Mandi and was brought in a three-wheeler to the hospital. Even this plea of the Accused has been held to be figment of imagination and without any evidence in support thereof. On the other hand, the prosecution has produced evidence in the form of human blood soiled mud from the spot near the hospital where the incident in question had occurred as stated by Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2). 28. Even the fact that the Accused have been acquitted in the cross-cases filed with regard to the first incident which took place at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening will not take the matter any further for the Appellants. That was an independent incident whereas the finding of guilt recorded against the Appellants is concerning the incident which had taken place at 8.30 p.m. near the Government Hospital, Palwal as proved by the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the incident at 8.30 p.m. was the counter blast of the fight which had taken place between two groups at 6.30 p.m. and the previous enmit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
