Supreme Court of India
PONNAM CHANDRAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 880
- Decided
- 30 July 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction must be under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149, and the relationship of witnesses does not automatically vitiate their testimony; the maxim falsus in uno is not a mandatory rule of evidence.
Summary
Sixteen accused attacked the deceased with weapons, leading to his death. The trial court convicted all under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and related provisions, and the High Court upheld convictions of some while acquitting others. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the relatives of the deceased, who were key witnesses, could be considered unreliable solely because of their relationship, and rejected the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" as a mandatory rule. The Court held that relationship does not per se affect credibility and that the conviction should be under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149, not Section 302. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the convictions were altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the sentence was fixed at ten years imprisonment.
Issues considered
- The effect of a witness's relationship to the victim on his credibility
- The applicability of the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" in criminal trials
- Whether the facts constitute murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC
- Whether an accused can be convicted despite the acquittal of co‑accused
- The appropriate weight to be given to partisan or interested evidence
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 307, s. 324, s. 327, s. 448
Subjects
witness credibilitypartisan witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusIPC Section 302IPC Section 304 Part Iculpable homicidecriminal appealevidence weightconviction alteration
Judgment
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 561
... ~
PONNAM CHANDRAIAH A
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2008)
JULY 30, 2008
B
'(
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
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 - De-
ceased succumbed to injuries in hospital - Fl.R. - lnvestiga-
tion - Chargesheet - Relying on evidence of relatives, eye
witnesses, trial Court found accused persons guilty of com-
mitting 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 ac-
cqsed 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 ap-
proach in analyzing evidence of witnesses to find out its cred-
ibility - Even if major portion of evidence found to be defi-
cient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, F
his conviction could be maintained - Notwithstanding acquit-
ta/ 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.
561 H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008) 11 S.C.R.
....' ..:..
A· According to the prosecution,· on the fateful day, ac-
cused 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 per-
B sons beat the deceased indiscriminately. At last, the de-
ceased· 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.
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 HELD: 1.1 In regard to the interestedness <;>f the wit-
nesses for furthering the prosecution version, relation-
ship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It
is more often than not that a relation would not conceal Y' .
' '
the actual culprit and make allegations against an inno-
cent person. Foundation has. to be laid if a plea of false
H
PON NAM CHANDRAiAH v. STATE OF 563
AP.
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 rela-
tive 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 prosecu- D
tion case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of
"fa/sus in uno falsus in omnibus". This plea is clearly unten-
able. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be de-
ficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an
accused 1 notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co- E
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 evi-
dence 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
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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 1IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The con-
viction of the appellants is accordingly altered from Sec-
tion 302 read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read
with Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years
would meet the ends of justice. The conviction and sen-
0
tence is altered accordingly. (Para - 16) [570 C-E]
Case Law Reference ,k _.,,
AIR (1953) SC 364 Relied on Para - 9
E (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
F
(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
G (2005) 9 sec 616 Relied on Para - 14
AIR (2006) SC 2716 Relied on Para - 15
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 ren-
dered 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
E
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. 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 de-
ceased. 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
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
~ .
A number, they refused to travel in his Auto and beat him. On 03-
07-2003 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 at-
tacked him. A-1 .beat the deceased with a stick. The deceased
In
~
)
ran into the . house and bolted the door. 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
and beat the deceased. Some of the accused were armed with
c 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 Hospi-
D 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 postmor-
,,..
tern examination. The accused were arrested and weapons
were recovered. After completion of the investigation, the po-
lice laid the charge sheet. The accused denied the charges
and claimed for trial.
G
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 be-
half 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 567
,,_ AP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
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 ac-
cused persons submitted that the conviction is based primarily
on the evidence of witnesses who were related to the deceased. B
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 fur-
thering 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
E
1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
"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 F
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
.drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has
a grudge· along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
G
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 614). ·sc
was also relied upon. · · ·
11. We may also observe that the ground tharihe witness
c being a close relative and consequently being a ·partisan wit-
ness, 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:
"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
E 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
F 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."
G 12. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP (AIR 1965
SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14): .
"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 ...... .
H
PONNAM CHANDRAIAH v. STATE OF 569
A.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
...
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
'1' 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 wit- c
nesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire pros-
ecution 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
..,_ .l{
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 testi-
mony 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
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A and /srar v. State of UP (2005 (9) SCC 616)
15. In S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P (AIR 2006 SC
2716), it was observed; Relationship is not a factor to affect
a
credibility of a witness. It is more often- than not that re.lation
would not concea·1 actual culprit and make allegations against
8 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·:
"If the evidence on record is cor:isidered on the touchstone.
-principles set out above. the inevitable conclusion is that
D 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 Section-
149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 yearswould meet-the
E 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:''. · . ·,
17. In view of what has been stated inthe aforesaid Crimi-
nal Appeal, the appeals are allowed to the ~fotesaid e~tei1t.
F.
18. Th_e appeals.are partly aHowed. ·
S.K.S. Appeals partly allqwed.
t ~ •
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "witness credibility"Sign in to search