TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt places, in order to destroy the evidence. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2010/06.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1988, confirming the judgment of conviction passed against the Appellants herein by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 192/117 of 1977/1983, for the offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 149, and a further period of three years Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Seven Accused including the Appellants were tried. Among the seven Accused, two Accused have died. Five Accused are before us as Appellants in these two appeals. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 14.10.1973 at 11:00 p.m., deceased-Gupteshwar Singh along with PW6-Shambhu Singh carried meals for his farm worker; the farm worker was staying in the pump house of the deceased which is situated at the west of Pusauli railway station. The first informant, viz., Srimati Surajbansi Kuer, PW11, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Police Station in the midnight, i.e., the intervening night of 15.10.1973 and 16.10.1973. As the police officer was not immediately available and was taking rest, the first information report came to be recorded at 4:00 a.m. on 16.10.1973 at the said police station by PW15 (Sub-Inspector of Police). The crime was registered and thereafter the investigation took off. 5. During the course of investigation, the police recovered the dead body of Gupteshwar Singh in two pieces. His head was found out in a gunny bag along with a big stone from the well, which was located at a deserted place and which belonged to one Rameshish Singh. The other portion of the body was also found tied in a gunny bag and was lying in a bogie of a goods train. PW11-informant identified not only the face of the dead body but also the wearing clothes and apparel of the deceased. 6. In sum and substance, the Accused were charge-sheeted, and tried, convicted and sentenced, as mentioned supra. However, in the meanwhile, two of the Accused died. The High Court, by its impugned judgment, has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court, so far as the five Appellants are conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said doctor, or the non-availability of the said doctor during the relevant point of time. PW15-Gopal Krishna Jha was the investigating officer. 8. To satisfy our conscience, we have carefully gone through the evidence of all the witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of the three eye witnesses, PWs 6, 11 and 14, and the evidence of PW15, the investigating officer. The supporting witnesses such as the officials of Railway Protection Force fully support the case of the prosecution to prove the recovery of the dead body in two pieces and to prove the motive for commission of the offence. 9. The evidence of three eye witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable insofar it relates to the Accused-Kameshwar Singh. At the inception itself, PW11, the step-mother of the deceased (PW11 had fostered the deceased) had stated in her first information that when she went to the spot of the incident along with PW6 and PW14 during the night of 14.10.1973, she not only heard the moaning sound of the deceased but also saw Kameshwar Singh throttling the neck of the deceased. Other Accused were said to be holding the deceased. Among other Accused, one Accused, namely Shesh Badan Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l human reaction under the facts and circumstances of the case. Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast Rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be faulted merely because they ran away. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327, observed as follows: 6....Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set Rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. The aforemention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 12 and 13, who are none other than the officials of Railway Protection Force regarding the recovery of the dead body in two pieces. Identity of the dead body was not in doubt, inasmuch as the head of the dead body was identified by PW11, who is none other than the step mother of the deceased. 15. The aspect of motive also points towards the Accused-Kameshwar Singh. PW9-Ravinder Nath Singh, who is the inspector of Railway Protection Force has deposed that the two cases were lodged against the Accused-Kameshwar Singh in the years 1972 and 1973 with regard to theft of railway property and in both these cases the deceased-Gupteshwar Singh was a witness. The evidence of this witness cannot be doubted, inasmuch as he has produced the statements of Gupteshwar Singh in both the criminal cases before the trial Court and the same are marked as Exhibits 4 and 4/1. PW9 has identified the Accused-Kameshwar Singh, who was present in the dock by saying that he was a man against whom cases under the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 were lodged and were pending. PW11 has supported the evidence of PW9 by deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt suspicions 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. 18. 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 com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
