Holding

The conviction of the appellant was justified and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Ram Udgar Singh, was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of a political rival. The conviction was based on the testimony of four eyewitnesses, while eight co‑accused were acquitted on the same evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the witnesses were relatives of the deceased and therefore partisan, that the medical evidence on rigor mortis contradicted the prosecution’s time of death, and that the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" should invalidate the entire case. The Supreme Court held that a witness's relationship does not per se affect credibility, that normal discrepancies are permissible, and that the doctrine of "falsus in uno" is not a mandatory rule of evidence in India. It further ruled that the residual evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite the acquittal of co‑accused, and that the medical evidence on rigor mortis was not fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

The credibility of witnesses who are relatives of the deceased
Whether the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" mandates discarding all evidence if part of it is false
Whether acquittal of co‑accused on the same set of evidence precludes conviction of the appellant
The relevance of medical evidence on rigor mortis to the time of death
Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to sustain a conviction under IPC 302 and the Arms Act

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25A, s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderarms actwitness credibilityfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusrigor mortisacquittal of co-accusedevidentiary valuenormal discrepancymaterial discrepancy

Judgment

A
RAM UDGAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF BJHAR

B NOVEMBER 3, 2003

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] '

Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959-Section 3021Sections25A and 27-
c Prosecution for murder-Prosecution case supported by witnesses-Conviction
by Courts below-On appeal, held : Conviction justified

Criminal Trial :

Related witnesses-Evidentiary value of-Held: Relationship is not a
r
D factor to affect credibility of a witness.

Deficient evidence-Evidentiary value of-Held: Conviction can be based
on such evidence-Falsity ofparticular material witness or material particular
would not ruin it from the beginning to end-Court is to separate truth from
falsehood-But where truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up and in
E the process ofseparation an absolutely new case is reconstructed the evidence
is to be discarded in toto-Principle of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'.

Normal Discrepancies and Material Discrepancies-Difference
between--Discussed.

F Maxim:

"Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "-Applicability and nature of-Held:
The maxim has no applicability in India as it has no general acceptance and
has not attained the status of rule oflaw-It is not mandatory rule ofevidence.

G Appellant-accused alongwith 8 others, was tried for having caused
death of a person by firing a gunshot and assaulting PW-5 and PW-2. Trial
Court relying on the evidence of PWs I, 2, 3 and 5 held the appellant guilty
of the offences u/s 302 IPC and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The eight other accused who were charged for offences punishable u/s 302
"
H 68
RAM UDGAR SINGH v. ST ATE OF B!HAR 69
r/w Section 34 IPC were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. High A
Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the conviction of
the appellant was not justified; that the witnesses being relatives of the
deceased were partisan and hence were not reliable; that having acquitted
8 out of 9 accused on the same set of evidence it was not proper to convict B
)
the appellant by applying a different yardstick; that the time of death as
given by the prosecution was improbablised in view of medical evidence
according to which rigor mortis could not have set in the dead body within
two hours.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD : 1. The courts were justified in holding that appellant was
the assailant, and accordingly convicted him. Evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and
5 clearly establish the definite role played by the accused-appellant. So
far as plea that rigor mortis could not have set in the dead body within D
two hours, High Court has rightly concluded that the time which is usually
three to four hours may vary according to climatic conditions. No
exception could be taken to the well merited reasoning squarely found
supported by overwhelming relevant, convincing and concrete evidence
placed on record by the prosecution in this case, and no error could be
made out or substantiated in them, to call for interference of this Court. E
(76-D-E)

2. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is
more often than not that a relation or a friend would not conceal actual
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has F
to be laid if 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. (74-C-D)

Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P.; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR
(1973) SC 2407 and lehna v. State of Haryana, [:2002) 3 SCC 76 AIR (1965) G
SC 202, relied on.
. I
Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, [2002)· 8 SCC 381,
referred to.

3.1. Applicability of principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' (false H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A in one thing, false in everything) is untenable in the present case. Even if
major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue 'is
sufficient to prove 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
B 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 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 fa/sus in omnibus" has no application in India and
the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim has not received
C 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 discarded.
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
D be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'. (74-G-H; 75-A-C)

Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957) SC 366, referred
to.

3.2. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because
E grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation
an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential
details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the
background against which they are made, the only available course to be
made is to discard the evidence in toto. (75-G-H; 76-A)

F Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1956) SC 460,
referred to.

3.3. The doctrine of ''fa/sus in uno falsus in omnibus" is a dangerous
one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be
rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some
G aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come
to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story,
however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case
as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because
in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing
reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a
H
RAM UDGAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [PASA YAT, J.] 71
_,;.
matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The A
evidence has to be sifted with care. 175-D-GI

Sohrab slo Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh, [19721
3 SCC 751 and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC
277, referred to.
B
,) 3.4. Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted,
though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was
the same, does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been
convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to
differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were
convicted. (75-C-D) c
3.5. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to
normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
' -
occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a
D
witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal,
and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category
to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies
do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do
so. (76-B-CJ
E
Krishna Machi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc., JT (2002) 4 SC 186,
relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
992 of 2002.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated I 9.4.2002 of the Patna High Court
in Crl. A. No. 385 of 1987.

S.B. Upadhyay and Sujit K. Singh for the Appellant.

H.L. Aggarwal, Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh for the Respondent. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Politics, which was once considered the choice
of noble and decent persons is increasingly becoming a haven for law breakers.
The 'Nelsons' eye' turned by those wielding power to criminalisation of H
72 SUPREME COURT R::PORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A politics by their solemn and determined patronage and blessings by vying
with each other has been encouraging and facilitating rapid spread and growth
with rich rewards and dividends to criminals. The alarming rate of social
respectability such elite gangsterism gaining day by day in the midst of
people who chose and had given unto themselves the right to elect their
B rulers, mostly guided by misdirected allegiance to party politics and self
oriented profit making endeavours seem to provide the required nectar for its
manifold and myriad ways of ventilation with impugnity. Though it is an '
irony, yet accepted truth is that the 'Home rule' we could achieve by 'non-
violence' has become the root cause for generating 'homicidal' culture of
political governance effectively shielded by unprincipled mass sympathies
C and highly profit-oriented selfish designs of unscrupulous 'people' who have
many faceted images to present themselves at times to the extent of their
deification. For some it brings seal for respectability and for some others, it
is intended to be used as a shield for protection against law enforcing agencies
and that is how reports of various Commissions and Committees have become
D sheer cry in wilderness.

About three decades back one Ram Anugrah Singh alias Annu Singh
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was a victim of political rivalry. He
paid price for allegedly being a loyal member of one political party which
was not to the liking of some including the present appellant. Debacle of
E Parliamentary by-election of 1969 is said to have provided the impetus to do
away with the life of the deceased on 7.4.1969. The appellant along with I 0
others including the members of the Parliament and legislative assembly
were alleged to be responsible for his death. Eleven persons in total faced
trial for offences punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short the '!PC'). Appellant was charged for commission of offence
F punishable under Section 302 !PC and Sections 25A and 27 of the Arms Act,
1959 (for short the 'Arms Act'). Eight others were charged for commission
of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC. Two
others breathed their last during trial.

Prosecution qise as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:
G
Ram Bilash Singh (PW5), deceased and one Ramanand Jha (PW-2) had
gone to withdraw money from a bank at Barauni. The deceased also carried
some amount to be paid to a wood seller. After withdrawal of money from
the bank all the three persons proceeded on bicycle and reached near the post
H office of their village Bihat. At that time three of the accused persons namely,
RAM UDGAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [PASA YAT. J.] 73
Surya Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh coming A
from a place of some political meeting saw them. They were followed by
many other persons including the accused persons. Four accused persons
including the appellant caught hold of the deceased. While accused Ram
Ratan Singh and Umesh Singh caught hold of the informant (PW5), accused
Ram Shankar Singh and Sahdeo Singh caught hold of Ramanand Jha (PW-
2). Accused Surya Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh B
) who were leaders of a political party directed others to kill the deceased, as
it was a good opportunity to kill him. At the behest of these three persons as
aforesaid four persons caught the deceased and took him towards North in
the field. Accused-appellant Ram Udgar Singh fired a gun shot on the chest
of the deceased. Other accused Suro Singh (since dead) also shot at the C
deceased. Receiving the gunshot injuries the deceased fell down. Thereafter
the accused persons ran away after taking the cash carried by the deceased.
The occurrence was witnessed by Kapildeo Singh, and others arrived there
on hearing the sound of firing. The deceased was taken to the hospital in
injured condition, but he breathed his last there. First information report was
lodged and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, D
charge sheet was placed· as aforesaid. As the Criminal Procedure Code of
1898 (for short the 'Old Code') was in operation, proceedings were initiated'
under the existing law. While the case was still pending for inquiry under
Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, the new <:;ode came into force, and the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions in 1977. Charges were framed. PWs. E
I to 4 were examined. As some witnesses were not examined earlier petition
was filed and it was taken note of and some other persons were examined.

On consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court held the
accused-appellant guilty while giving the benefit of doubt to others. In appeal
filed by the accused-appellant before the High Court the plea of innocence F
and false implication due to political rivalry which was pressed into service
before the Trial court was reiterated and the evidence was stated to be not
worthy of credence. It was submitted that the so-called PWs I and 3 were
chance witnesses and their credibility was open to doubt. The High Court
held that the prosecution has established its accusations so far as the accused- G
appellant is concerned and did not find any merit in the appeal.

In support of the appeal, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel submitted
that when 8 out of the 9 persons who faced trial have been acquitted on the
same set of evidence it was not proper to convict the accused-appellant by
applying different yardstick. The ma/a fides are patent when one considers H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the findings that many persons were roped in chough they were innocent. It
was pointed that the time of death as given by prosecution witnesses is
improbabilised by the doctor's evidence. The witnesses were relatives of the
deceased and, were therefore, partisan. In essence it was submitted that the
Trial Court and the High Court were not justified in convicting the accused.

B In response, Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel supported the
judgment and submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have
analysed the evidence in great detail and no infirmity can be noticed therein
to warrant interference.

C Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more
often than not that a relation or a friend would not conceal actual culprit and
make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if 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
(See Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, (2002] 8 SCC 381). The
D trial Court and High Court have kept the legal principles in view and made
detailed and elaborate analysis of the evidence.

Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202 this
Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):

E "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 ....... The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground 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
F 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 as correct."

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 SCC 76. Stress
G was laid by the accused-appellant on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered
by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution
case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "fa/sus 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
H sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number
RAM UDGAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [l'ASAYAT.J.] 75
• ...i
of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty A
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 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 branded
B
as liar. The maxim "fa/sus 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. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine
merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply c
in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory
rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1957)
SC 366). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted,
though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the
same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been .convicted
D
must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused
who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan
Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1956) SC 460). The doctrine is a
dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were
to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some
aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come E
to a dead-stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story,
however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as
to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in
some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing
reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a
F
matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence
has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the
reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not
contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or
embellishment. (See Sohrab s/o Be/i Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, [1972) 3 SCC 751 and Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, G
AIR (1965) SC 277). An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms
of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood.
,; Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and
chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely
new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

A the prosecution completely from the context and the background against ".
which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the
evidence in toto. (See lw:nglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
(1954) SC 15 and Balak.a Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1975)
SC 1962. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and
B Anr., AIR ( 1981) SC 1390, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which
are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to
lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time
of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a
witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and
not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which
C a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode
the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects
were highlighted recently in Krishna Machi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc.
JT (2002) 4 SC 186. Accusations have been clearly established against accused-
appellant in the case at hand. The Courts below have categorically indicat•ed
D the distinguishing features in evidence so far as acquitted and convicted
accused are concerned.

Evidence of PWs I, 2, 3 and 5 clearly establish the definite role played
by the accused-appellant. So far as plea relating to time of death on the basis
of medical evidence is concerned, emphasis is laid on the fact that rigor
E mortis could not have set in the dead body within two hours. High Court has
referred to several treatises on medical jurisprudence to conclude that the
time which is usually three to four hours may vary according to climatic
conditions. We find no infirmity in the conclusion. The courts were justified
in holding that appellant was the assailant, and accordingly convicted him.
No exception could be taken to the well merited reasoning squarely found
F supported by overwhelming relevant, convincing and concrete evidence placed
on record by the prosecution in this case, and no error could be made out or
substantiated in them, to call for our interference.

There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
G K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.