Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 561 ... ~ A - _.._ ## PONNAM CHANDRAIAH _v._ STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2008) '( # JULY 30, 2008 **[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]** B _Penal Code, 1860; Ss.147, 148, 149,_ S.302 _rlw S.149; S.324-rlw. s.149_ & _s.448:_ _Assault and murder_ - _Accused, 16 in number, armed_[c ] _with weapons attacked the deceased and injured him_ - _Deceased succumbed to injuries in hospital_ - _Fl.R._ - _lnvestigation_ - _Chargesheet_ - _Relying on evidence of relatives, eye witnesses, trial Court found accused persons guilty of committing offences of assault and murder of the deceased by_ D _forming an unlawful assembly and sentenced all of them to_ - _life imprisonment Affirmed by High Court against all the accqsed persons excepting A2, A4, A5, A6, A 10, A 11 and A 14 to A 16_ - _Correctness of_ - _Held: Relationship is not_ a _factor to affect credibility of_ a. _witness_ - _Generally_ a _relation would not_ E _conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person_ - _Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made_ - _The Court has to adopt_ a _careful approach in analyzing evidence of witnesses to find out its credibility_ - _Even if major portion of evidence found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused,_ F _his conviction could be maintained_ - _Notwithstanding acquitta/ of co-accused person, conviction of accused-appellant could be maintained_ - _However in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the proper conviction would be under_ s. _304 Pt. I instead of s. 302 /PC_ - _Conviction of the appellants al-_ G - _tered accordingly Sentencing._ _Maxims:_ _c_ Maxim _'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'_ - _Applicability of._ H 561 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008) 11 S.C.R. .... _..:._ ' A· According to the prosecution,· on the fateful day, accused persons, sixteen in number, armed with weapons came to the house of the dec·eased and attacked him. When PW-2, father o·f the deceased; intervene·d to rescue the deceased, A-1 beathim wi.th a stick. The accused perB sons beat the deceased indiscriminately. At last, the deceased· feH ··clown ·at the ;Grain· panchay.al office: He :was . taken to a Government Hospital by PW 5 and others. On the advise ofthe Doctor, a comp·laintwas lodged bythem in the Police Station and the poliee registered a e:rime C against the accused persons for commit.ting offe_nces under Sectio.ns 147, 148,-448, 307; 327. read with ·149 of l.P.G .. Later, the deceased .succ.umbed ·to th~ injuries.' .The. Police arrested the accused and, after completico~ of th~ investigatio,n, submitted the. ctlarge sh~et.. Tria.1 Cot,Jrt found all the accused person~ guilty for commission _of D offences punishable under Sections 147, 14~,. 448 .f~a9 with Sections .149, 302 read with Section 149 and Sec~ion 324 read with Section-149 of .the Indian. Penal .Code, 1860 and sentenced them accordingly; In appeal, High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of A1, A3, A7 to:A9; E A12 and A13 butacquitted ·Other accused persons. Hence, the present appeals filed by A7 to A9 and A 13. A· Accused. persons. contended that the convi.ction is based primarily on the evidenc~ of witnesses~ who were F related to the deceased. Further the accusations even if accepted in . toto do not make out ' a case relatable ' to ' Sec'• tion 302 IPC. Partly allowing the appeals, t~e Court · G H HELD: 1.1 In regard to the interestedness <;>f the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has. to be laid if a plea of false > Y' ' ' . PON NAM CHANDRAiAH _v._ STATE OF AP. 563 implication is. made. In such cases, the court has to adopt A a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 8) [567-C-D] 1.2 The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon,. has no substance. (Para- 11) [568-C] B _Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab_ AIR.(1953) ·SC 364; _Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan_ (1974) 3 SCC 698; _Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras_ AIR (1957) SC 614; _Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP_ AIR (1965) SC 202 and c _State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh_ AIR (1973) SC 2407 and _Lehna v. State of Haryana_ (2002) 3 SCC 76 - relied on. 1.3 Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the no!l-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecuD tion case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of _"fa/sus in uno falsus in omnibus"._ This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused 1 notwithstanding acquittal of number of other coE accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of F other accused persons. (Para - 13) [569 C-E] 1.4 Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim _"falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"_ has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The G maxim has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of 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 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 564 [2008] 11 S.C.R. A 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'. (Para_ 13) [569 E-G] _Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh_ AIR (1957) SC -.366; _Suchq Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab_ (2003) 6 JT SC B ;. 348; l~rar _v. State of UP_ (2005) 9 SCC 616 and S. _Sudershan Reddy v. State of AP_ AIR (2006) SC 2716 - relied on. )t .. 2. In Criminal appeal Nos. 222 of 2007, this Court has occasion to deal with the cases of some of the co-accused C persons and held that the proper conviction would be Section 304 Part 1 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years 0[would ][meet the ][ends ][of ][justice. The ][conviction ][and ][sen-] tence is altered accordingly. (Para - 16) [570 C-E] E F G ## Case Law Reference AIR (1953) SC 364 Relied on Para - 9 (1974) 3 sec 698 Relied on Para - 10 AIR (1957) SC 614 Relied on Para - 10 AIR (1965) SC 202 Relied on Para - 12 ~IR (1973) SC 2407 Relied on Para - 13 (2002) 3 sec 76 Relied on Para - 13 AIR (1957) SC -366 Relied on Para - 13 (2003) 6 JT SC 348 Relied on Para -14 (2005) 9 sec 616 Relied on Para - 14 AIR (2006) SC 2716 Relied on Para - 15 ,k _.,, .... CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No.-1182 of 2008 H PONNAM CHANDRAIAH _v._ STATE OF 565 ## A.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2006 of the High A Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 1130 of 2005 ## WITH Crl. A. No. 1183 of 2008 B K. Amareswari, V.R. Reddy, P. Venkat Reddy, Anil Kumar Tandale, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabu Ramasubramanian for the Appellant. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. D 3. Sixteen persons including the appellants faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections · 147,148, 448 read with Sections 149, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') Learned Ill Additional Sessions judge, Karimnagar for each one of them guilty. In appeal, High Court upheld the conviction of A 1, A3, A 7 to A9, A 12 and A 13 and sentence of imprisonment for life as imposed by the trial court. Rest of the accused persons were acquitted. The present appeals are by A 7 to A9 and A 13. E F 4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: PW-1 is the wife,. PW-2 is the father, P.W-3 is the mother, PWA is the brother and PW-5 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. The accused, deceased and the material witnesses G are residents of Neerukulla village. The deceased purchased . an Auto and. was plying in between Sulthanabad and Neerukulla. _Dn_ 02-07-2003 at about 9-00 PM, the deceased returned to his house from Sulthanabad and informed PWs.I to 3 that when he requested A-1 and A-2 to travel in his Auto as per the serial H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. 566 ~ A number, they refused to travel in his Auto and beat him. On 0307-2003 morning, PW-1 and the deceased went to the house of the Sarpanch and raised a dispute. 'The Sarpanch called A- 1-and informed about the incident. A-1 admitted his guilt in the presence of PWs.9 and 10. On the same day at about 6-00 B PM, A-1 to A-16 came to the house of the deceased and attacked him. A-1 .beat the deceased with a stick. The deceased ran into the house and bolted the door. ' . In the meanwhile, when - PW-2 intervened to rescue the deceased, A-1 beat him with a stick. A-3 broke the doors and all the accused entered the house c[and beat the deceased. Some ][of ][the accused were armed with ] iron rods and axes. They beat the deceased ir:idiscriminately. Then the deceased ran out from the house. The accused chased and beat him indiscriminately. Finally, the deceased fell down at the Gram panchayat office on receipt of the injuries. Later, the deceased was taken in an Auto to the Government HospiD tal, Sulthanabad. On the advise of the Doctor, they went to the Police Station and gave Ex P-1 report. On the basis of Ex.P-1, the police registered a crime for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 307, 327 read with 149 of l.P.C. Thereafter, the deceased and PW-2, who received injuries, were referred to E the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. The deceased, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries. After the death of the deceased, the Sections of law were altered in the crime through the alteration memo. The Inspector of Police took up investigation, prepared the rough sketch, observed the scene F of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized M.Os.1 and 2 and later sent the dead body for postmortern examination. The accused were arrested and weapons were recovered. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. The accused denied the charges G[and claimed for trial. ] ) ...__ .. ,,.. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 22 and marked Exs.P-.1 to P-39. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D-1, a portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 was H[marked. ] PONNAM CHANDRAIAH _v._ STATE OF AP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 567 ,,_ 5. High Court by a common judgment disposed of four A appeals. numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos. ~114, 1128, 1130 and 1155 of 2005. 6. In support of the appeals learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the conviction is based primarily B on the evidence of witnesses who were related to the deceased. Further the accusations even if accepted in tote do not make out a case relatable to Section 302 IPC. ....... 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand supported the judgments of the Courts below. c 8. In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allega-. tions against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a D plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible .. 9. In _Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab_ (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:- E "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from· sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to F . a grudge· along with the guilty, but foundation must drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has G be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a. sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case mus.t be judged on its own fact~: H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R. A Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 10. The above decision has since been followed in _Guli_ ·· B _Chand and Ors. v. State of Rafasthan_ (197 4 (3) SCC 698) in which _Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras_ (AIR 1957 ·sc 614). was also relied upon. · · · 11. We may also observe that the ground tharihe witness c being a close relative and consequently being a ·partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in _Da/ip Singh's_ case. (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through, 0 Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: 0 E F G "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges- of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. lfit is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are u.nable to concur. This is a faliacy common to· many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - _'Rameshwai ·v. $fate of Rajastha.n'_ (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that .it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments ofcounsel." 12. Again in _Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP_ (AIR 1965 SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14): . H "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only ·on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses ...... . 569 PONNAM CHANDRAIAH _v._ STATE OF A.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ... _'1'_ ..,_ .l{ ...,( ~ The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground A that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted B as correct." 13. To the same effect is the decision in _State of Punjab v. .Jagir Singh_ (AIR 1973 SC 2407) and _Lehna v. State of Haryana_ (2002 (3) sec 76). Stress was laid by the accused-appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witc nesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove D guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been E found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be brand.ed as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in F omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of 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 G 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. The State of Uttar Pradesh_ (AIR 1957 SC 366). 14. The above position was elaborately discussed in _Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab_ (2003 (6) JT SC 348), H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. 570 A and /srar _v. State of UP_ (2005 (9) SCC 616) 8 > 15. In S. _Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P_ (AIR 2006 SC 2716), it was observed; Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often- than not that a re.lation would not concea·1 actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid It p·lea offalse implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a· careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is . cogent and credibl~. c 16. In Criminal appeal Nos. 222 _0(2007,_ this Court has occasio.ned to deal with the cases of some of the co-accused persons. in that case .it was concluded as follows·: D E - "If the evidence on record is cor:isidered on the touchstone. - -principles set out above. the inevitable conclusion is that the· proper conviction would be Section 304 Part .I I.PC instead of, Section . 3_02: IPC. The conviction of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 r~ad~ - with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with Section149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 yearswould meet-the ends of justice. The findings of the guilt jn respect of other offences and the sentel"!ces imposed do. not warrant - - interference. The sentence shall run concurrently:''. · . ·, F. 17. In view of what has been stated inthe aforesaid Criminal Appeal, the appeals are allowed to the ~fotesaid e~tei1t. 18. Th_e appeals.are partly aHowed. · S.K.S. Appeals partly allqwed. _t_ ~ •