Supreme Court of India
PREM SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 712
- Decided
- 6 May 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the non‑mention of Section 34 did not prejudice the appellants and that the conviction under Sections 302/149 (or 302/34) was justified, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of two accused under Sections 302 and 149/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Krishan, while three co‑accused had been acquitted by the High Court. The appellants argued that contradictions in the eyewitness testimonies and the High Court's failure to mention Section 34 in its concluding paragraph prejudiced their conviction. The Court held that the trial and appellate courts had not found any material discrepancy in the eye‑witness statements and that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply in India. It further ruled that the acquittal of the three co‑accused does not negate the existence of a common intention among the remaining two, and the non‑mention of Section 34 did not cause prejudice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the two appellants and setting aside the acquittals of the others.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑mention of Section 34 in the High Court's judgment prejudiced the appellants' conviction.
- Whether contradictions in the testimonies of PW‑1 and PW‑4 warrant overturning the convictions.
- Whether the acquittal of three co‑accused precludes conviction of the remaining two on a charge of common intention.
- Applicability of the doctrine falsus in uno falsus in omnibus in assessing eyewitness testimony.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
common intentionSection 34Section 149murderconvictionacquittaleyewitness testimonyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubt
Judgment
(2009] 7 S.C. R. 1142
.-
A PREM SINGH & ORS.
v
STATE OF HARYANA
Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2009
MAY 06, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND DR.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ)
PENAL CODE, 1860 :
~·
s. 302134 - Conviction - Non-mentioning of s. 34 in
c concluding portion of Judgment -Effect of - Conviction of 5
. accused by trial court uls 3021149 - High Court acquitting three
of them and affirming the judgment as regards the remaining
two - Held : Acquittal of three of the accused would not mean
that no case of common intention has been made out against
the remaining two - It has not been established that they were
D
prejudiced by non-mentioning of s. 34 in the concluding portion
of judgment of High Court - A judgment is not to be read as a
statute - It must be read reasonably and in its entirety -
- Judgment - Interpretation of.
E EVIDENCE:
Conviction by trial court uls 3021149 /PC of 5 accused -
Acquittal by High Court of three of them - Plea that there being
· discrepancies in evidences of PWs., judgment of High Court ...
could not be sustained - Held: Both the trial court and the
F High Court did not find any materiaf discrepancy in depositions
of eye-witnesses - It is not a case where testimonies of eye-
witnesses have been totally disbelieved - Doctrine of falsus--
in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India.
G MAXIM:
'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - Applicability of.
The appellants along with three others were
convicted and sentenced by the trial court uls 302 r/w s.149
~
-
H 1142
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1143
,{
IPC. On appeal the High Court while affirming the judgment A
of conviction and sentence against the appellants,
acquitted thtee of the accused giving them benefit of
doubt, inter alia, on the premise that the injuries attributed
to them were not found on the person of the deceased.
In the instant appeal it was contended for the B
appellants that both the courts below having noticed
~
serious discrepancies and contradictions in the
evidences of Pws.1 and 4, the judgment of the High Court
was wholly unsustainable; and that all the accused having
been charged with s.302/149 IPC and three of them having c
been acquitted, appellants could not have been convicted._ ' -
u/s 302 IPC.
Dismissing the appeal; the Court
HELD: 1.1 Correctness of the medical report is not D
in dispute. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased is
also not in dispute. The appreciation of evidence on the
·part of the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. In his
judgment, he analysed the depositions of P.W.1 and P.. 4
at great details. Both, the Sessions Judge as also the High i=
Court, did not find any material discrepancy in depositions
of eye-witnesses i.e. PWs.1 and 4. Some inconsistencies
in their testimonies were natural, but they were found to ...,
be not very material. Their testimonies on material
particulars were found to have been truthful and both the F
courts below have placed implicit reliance on both the
witnesses. [para 9] [1148-D-E]
1.2 The High Court recorded a ju~gment of acquittal
in favour of three of the accused only on the premise that
the role said to have been played by them was not G
..,_ corroborated by the medical evidence. The High Court
arrived at the said finding despite the fact that it placed
implicit reliance upon the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.4.
It is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine
'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A India. It is also not a case where the testimonies of the
eye-witnesses had been totally disbelieved. [Para 11, 13-
14] [1149-C-F; 1150-D-E ; 1150-G-H]
Jayaseelan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2009(2) SCALE 506;
and Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of
B Police 2009 (3) SCALE 431 - relied on.
Ba/aka Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4
sec 511- distinguished.
2.1 It may be true that all the five accused persons
c were said to have a common object; they were
prosecuted u/s 302/149,IPC; but the same would not mean
that only because three of them were given benefit of
doubt on a premise which may not be wholly correct, no
case of common intention has been made out against the
D appellants. They came together armed; threatened the
deceased; and went back together. It has not been
established that the appellants had in any way been
prejudiced by non-mentioning of s.34, IPC in the concluding
portion of the judgment of the High Court. Though there
E is distinction between the common object and common
inbmtion, but when a common intention can also be found
out on the basis of the testimonies made by the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution, the High Court in
a situation of this nature was totally justified in affirming
F the said opinion. [para 15,17] [1151-C-F; 1152-H; 1153-A] •
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana [2000) 4 SCC 484 ;
I
and Y Venkaiah vs. State of A.P [2009 (4) SCALE 154]- relied (
on
2.2 A judgment as is well known is not to be read as a
' G
statute. It must be read reasonably and in its entirety. The
effect of a judgment must be found out from the wordings .
used by it and the attendant circumstances in which they
have been used.
H The High Court; on a plain reading of it judgment,
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1145
has attributed common intention on the part of the A
appellants in committing the crime. Their conviction u/s
302/34, therefore, was justified. In absence of any prejudice
having been shown on the part of the accused, this Court
on such technicalities alone would not interfere with the
impugned judgment: [para 16] [1152-B-D] B
Dhaneswar Mahakud & Ors. vs. State of Orissa (2006) 9
sec 307 -relied on.
. Case Law Reference
(1975) 4 sec 511 distinguished para 12 c
2009(2) SCALE 506 relied on para 13
2009 (3) SCALE 431 relied on para 13
(2006) 9 sec 307 relied on para 16
D
2000) 4 sec 484 relied on para 17
2009 (4) SCALE 154 relied on para 17
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 934 of 2009 E
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 428-DB of 1998
)
Anil Agrawal, S.N. Pandey, Chander Shekhar Ashri, for F
the Appellant.
Pragati Neekhra, Suryanarayana Singh, for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against a judgment and
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A order dated 25.2.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh affirming a judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 9.9.1998 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Rohtak convicting the appellants herein for
..
commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
s Penal Code (for short, "IPC")
3. A First Information Report (for short, "FIR") was lodged
on 8.10.1994 at about 5.50 p.m. by Prem Singh (P.W.1) inter
alia alleging that Chand Ram, Ajmer and Dilbagh and the •
appellants (Prem Singh and Karambir @ Pappu) herein were
C responsible for causing death of his brother Krishan (the
deceased).
They were charged under Sections 148 and 302/149 of
the IPC.
D The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six
witnesses.
4. P.W. 1 in his deposition before the learned Sessions
Judge stated that on the date of occurrence he was in his Bajra
field along with the deceased. At about 1.00 p.m. one Samunder
E and accused Ajmer were taking their bullock cart through their
mustard crop which was objected to by the deceased as a result
whereof they were forced to take back the same. They went
away threatening to see the deceased later. At about 3.00 p.m.
on the same day, accused persons came and started assaulting '
F the deceased. Prem Singh (Accused No.2) is said to have given
a jelly blow on the chest of the deceased whereas Karambir @
Pappu (Accused No. 3) inflicted a farsa blow on his head; Chand
Ram (Accused No.1) is said to have given a jelly blow on his
abdomen whereas Ajmer (Accused No.4) inflicted a jelly blow
G on his left knee. Dilbagh (Accused No. 5) is said to have given
a jelly blow with a lathy on the back of the deceased. While being ,
taken to hospital, the deceased died at about 5.00 p.m.
5. The learned trial judge on analysis of the entire evidence
H brought on record and after noticing the purported contradictions
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1147
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
.. in the statements of the prime witnesses, namely, Prem Singh A
(P.W.1) and Baljit Singh (P.W.4) found all of them guilty for
commission of murder of the deceased. The High Court,
however, while disposing of the appeal preferred by them inter
alia on the premise that the injuries attributed to the three others
apart from the appellants herein having not been found on the B
person of the deceased gave them the benefit of doubt while
affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence against the
, appellants.
6. Mr. Anil Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would raise the following contentions before us c
in support of this appeal:
i. All the accused persons having been charged for
commission of murder of the deceased Krishan under
Section 302/149 of the IPC and three of them having
D
been acquitted, appellants could not have been
convicted under Section 302 of the IPC.
ii. Both the courts below having noticed the serious
discrepancies and contradictions in the evidences
of P.Ws. 1 and 4, the impugned judgment is wholly E
unsustainable.
7. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State, however, would support the impugned
judgment.
F
8. P.W. 1 - Prem Singh -was with the deceased from the
very beginning. He was a witness to both the stages of
occurrence,. namely, the act of the two accused to drive bullock
cart through the agricultural field where mustard crop had been
· grown as also the assault on the deceased by all the accused
G
J. persons which had taken place at about 3.00 p.m.
Indisputably, the deceased was taken to a hospital. The
hospital and the Police Station at Meham was situated at a
distance of about 10 kilometers from the village Nidana where
the incident had taken place. P.W. 4 - Baljit Singh was also H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
y
A nearby. The deceased was taken to the hospital by a buggi.
The FIR was lodged at about 5.10 p.m. and it was recorded at
5.50 p.m. P.W. 3- Om Prakash Patwari drew the sketch map.
9. As was stated by Dr. Narender Singh (P.W.2), Medical
Officer In-Charge of the Madhath Dispensary, Rohtak, following
8 injuries were found on the person of the deceased :
"1. A contusion reddish colour 8 cm x .5 cm about 7 cm
below right axilla on right chest.
2. A semi circular wound (punctured) .9 cm x .6 cm x 4
C cm, (punctured wound) just above sternal notch.
3. A semi circular wound (punctured) .9 cm x .6 cm x 4
cm, 5cm away from above injury on left chest below
left sternoclavicular joint."
D All the injuries were found to be sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature.
Correctness of the said medical report is not in dispute.
Homicidal nature of death of the deceased is also not in dispute.
E 10. We have gone through the evidence of the first
informant Prem Singh (P.W.1) and Baljit Singh (P.W.4). Whereas
P.W.1 was examined on 9.2:1996, P.W. 4 was examined on
9.5.1997.
11. Both the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court
F did not find any material discrepancy in their depositions. Some
contradictions and/or inconsistencies in their testimonies were
natural, but they were found to be not very material. We may in
this regard place on record the following findings of the learned
Sessions Judge:
G
'There is nothing on record to prove that the two witnesses -~
had swerved from the path of truth, either by suppression
or by concoction or by the embellishment of facts which
are untrue. Undeniably, there are contradictions in their
testimonies and they have made slight improvements from
H
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1149
--<,
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
'
the version given by them before the police, but the hub of A
their testimony remains intact and the criticism leveled
against their testimonies does not seem to be well
founded."
The appreciation of evidence on the part of the learned
Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. In his judgment, he had B
analysed the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W. 4 at great details.
He not only placed on record the slight improvements made by
the witnesses from their statements made before the police but
also pointed out some inconsistencies in their depositions in
the court. But the testimonies in material particulars were found c
to have been truthful.
The High Court recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour
of Chand Ram, Ajmer and Dilbagh only on the premise that the
role said to have been played by them was not corroborated by
D
the medical evidence. The High Court arrived at the said finding
despite the fact that it placed implicit reliance upon the
testimonies of P.W.1 - Prem Singh and P.W. 4 - Baljit Singh,
opining:
"PW-1 Prem Singh and PW-4 Baljit, being real brothers E
of the deceased, will be the last persons to leave out the
real accused and implicate the appellants. Their presence
in the fields was quite natural. Their version has remained
unshaken in the cross-examination. No major discrepancy
has been pointed out in the testimony of PW-1 Prem Singh F
and PW-4 Baljit. We are of the view that there is no reason
to reject the testimony of PW-1 Prem Singh and PW-4
Baljit qua appellants Prem and Karambir @ Pappu.
Adequacy or absence of alleged motive has no
significance where reliable eyewitnesses' account is
G
available."
..# 12. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
on a decision of this Court in Ba/aka Singh and Ors. vs. The
State of Punjab [(1975) 4 sec 511] wherein the four accused
who were said to have taken active part in the assault of the H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 7 S.C.R.
A deceased had not been named in the inquest report as also in
the brief statement by the very person who had lodged the FIR
prior thereto. The Court found that their names were deliberately
added in the inquest report at the instance of the prosecution
and thus there was no guarantee as regards their participation
B in the assault on the deceased. The injuries found on the body
of the deceased were either contusions, abrasion or lacerated
wounds. No penetrating or incised wounds were found to be
present and, thus, the use of sharp-cutting instrument, such as,
barchha or spear was held to be belied. This Court in the peculiar
c facts of that case held that grain cannot be separated from the
chaff being inextricably mixed up as in the process of separation
the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely a new case
for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented
by it completely from the context and the background against
which they are made. It is on the aforementioned finding the
D
prosecution case was not believed. Such is not the case here.
13. It is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine
'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India.
In Jayaseelan vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2009 (2) SCALE
E 506], this Court held:
"The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in 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.
F 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."
G
{See also Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors. vs. State Rep. by
Inspector of Police [2009 (3) SCALE 431]} .
14. It is also not a case where the testimonies of the eye-
witnesses had been totally disbelieved.
H
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1151
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
Benefit of doubt has been given only because the A
testimonies of the witnesses in regard to the place of assault
,. on the person of the deceased were not corroborated by the
medical evidence. The High Court failed to notice that all the
accused persons were charged of having common object of
causing murder. A few of them might have taken active part and B
others might have aided and abated the commission of the
offence. It is, however, neither possible nor necessary to delve
into the said question as the State has not filed any appeal
questioning the correctness of the said order. The fact, however,
remains that both the courts below have placed implicit reliance
on both P.W.1 and P.W.4. We see no reason to take a different
c
view.
15. The second contention of the learned counsel, in our
opinion, is also without any merit. It may be true that all the five
accused persons were said to have a common object; they were D
punished under Section 302/149 of the IPC; but the same would
not mean that only because three of them were given benefit of
doubt on a premise which may not be wholly correct, no case of
common intention has been made out against the appellants.
They came together armed. They had threatened the E
deceased. They went back together. It has not been established
that the appellants herein had in any way been prejudiced by
non-mentioning of Section 34 of the IPC in the concluding portion
of the judgment of the High Court. The High Court, in its judgment,
however, categorically stated: F
"As regards Karambir@ Pappu, who has been attributed
simple injury on the head, we are of the view that both the
... accused clearly shared common intention. They came
prepared with deadly weapons and both have assaulted
the deceased on vital parts of the body. It is not a case of G
~
sudden occurrence. The deceased died almost
immediately as a result of the injuries received. There is
no reason to doubt sharing of common intention by
Karambir@ Pappu. He cannot, thus, avoid responsibility
for causing of the death. Even if injury individually attributed H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S,C.R
A to him is held to be simple, it cannot be held that he could
not have pre-conceived the result of the assault.
Accordingly, while conviction and sentence of Chand Ram, ,
Ajmer and Dilbagh are set aside and qua them, the appeal
is allowed and they are acquitted, conviction and sentence
B of Prem and Karambir@ Pappu is upheld and qua them,
the appeal is dismissed,"
16, A judgment as is well known is not to be read as a
statute, It must be read reasonably and in its entirety, The effect
c of a judgment must be found out from the wordings used by it
and the attending circumstances in which they have been used.
The High Court, on a plain reading of its judgment has attributed
common intention on the part of the appellants in committing
the aforementioned crime. Their conviction under Section 302/
34, therefore, was justified. In absence of any prejudice having been
0
shown on the part of the accused, this court on such technicalities
alone would not interfere with the impugned judgment. J
In Dhaneswar Mahakud & Ors. vs. State of Orissa [(2006)
9 sec 307], this court held:
E "23. The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased
clearly indicates the intention of the accused-appellants
to do away with the deceased. The evidence of the
witnesses along with the injuries reported in post-mortem
reports clearly bring out the common intention of the
F accused-appellants and we do not think that the accused-
appellants would be prejudiced merely because the charge
was framed under Section 302 read wi.th Section 149,
IPC and not under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.
From the evidence of two witnesses, PW-5 and PW-7, it
G would appear that the accused-appellants shared the
common intention to cause death of the victims."
17. While we say so, we are not oblivious of the distinction
between the common object and common intention. But when
H a common intention can also be found out on the basis of the
PREM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1153
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
testimonies made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the A
prosecution, the High Court in a situation of this nature was
totally justified in affirming the said opinion.
See Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 4 SCC
484 paragraph 22 to 25]
B
. Recently in Y Venkaiah vs. State of A.P [2009 (4) SCALE
154], this Court held:
"31. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh
~ and Anr. v. State of Punjab -AIR 1963 SC 174, construed
the scope of Section 34 and compared it with Section C
149 and pointed out the essential distinction between the
two. Justice Gajendragadkar (as His Lordship then was)
speaking for the Constitution Bench held that like Section
149, Section 34 also deals with cases of constructive
criminal liability in the sense where a criminal act is done D
by several persons in furtherance of the common intention
1.: . of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner as if it were done by him alone. According
to the Constitution Bench, the essential constituent of the
vicarious criminal liability contemplated by Section 34 is E
the existence of common intention. When such common
intention animates the accused persons and leads to the
commission of the criminal offence charged, each of the
persons sharing the common intention is constructively
liable for the criminal act done by one of them. The F
Constitution Bench held that in some ways Section 34
and Section 149 are similar and in some areas they may
overlap but nevertheless the common intention, which is
the sine-qua-non of Section 34 is different from the common
object which brings together an unlawful assembly of G
persons within the meaning of Section 149 of the Code."
18. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "common intention"Sign in to search