Summary
Twenty-two persons were tried for rioting, trespass and murder with common object, after a man was dragged from his house and hacked to death. The Sessions Court acquitted all of them, finding the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, the deceased's mother and maternal uncle, contradictory and exaggerated. The Karnataka High Court upheld the other acquittals but convicted two accused under Section 302 IPC alone. The Court held that the High Court was right that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law. But the two witnesses contradicted each other even on the weapons and on the second appellant's role. The High Court's result was also illogical. Unlawful assembly, rioting and trespass were held not proved against anyone. The High Court had no compelling reasons to reverse the acquittal, so the appellants were acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse an acquittal and convict two of 22 accused under Section 302 IPC alone on the evidence of two eyewitnesses the trial court had disbelieved, after holding the charges of unlawful assembly, rioting and trespass not proved against all.
- How far the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies in criminal cases.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An appellate court reversing an acquittal must give strong and cogent reasons. The High Court gave none sufficient to displace the trial court's reasoned disbelief of the two witnesses. (¶ 26)
- Section 302 and Sections 143 to 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Once unlawful assembly, common object, rioting and trespass were held not proved against all 22 accused, singling out two for conviction under Section 302 alone on the same contradictory evidence was unsustainable. (¶¶ 3, 14, 17)
Held
- The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution and not a rule of law in criminal cases. The court must separate truth from falsehood unless the two are inseparable, as Arvind Kumar holds, so the High Court was right that the witnesses' evidence could not be rejected on that maxim alone. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The two eyewitnesses contradicted each other on the weapons used and on the second appellant's role, which shook the foundation of the prosecution case. The mother's claimed injuries were not in her complaint and were not supported by medical evidence, which is why the trial court disbelieved both witnesses. (¶¶ 11, 24, 25)
- The charge was that all 22 accused, as an armed unlawful assembly, trespassed and killed the deceased with a common object. With those charges held not proved against all and no State appeal against the other acquittals, convicting only two accused under Section 302 was illogical. (¶ 17)
- The prosecution did not explain why two FIRs were registered, and the deceased's widow, who gave the second complaint and was cited as a witness, was not examined. To overturn a reasoned acquittal, the High Court needed stronger and more cogent reasons than it gave. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed. The appellants' conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and they are to be released forthwith unless required in any other case; no costs.