2003 (7) TMI 704 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Convictions Stand as Evidence Deemed Credible and Sufficient; Appellants' Arguments Rejected.

SUCHA SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB.

The SC dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants. The Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a ... Challenged the Acquittal Order - Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution - Guilty of offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') - Credibility of Witnesses - HELD THAT:- Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. As observed by this Court in Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case, particularly, when the accused who claimed to have sustained injuries has been acquitted. The fact that name of P.W. 10 does not figure in the inquest report or that the DDR entry does not contain the name of Pritam Singh does not in any way corrode the credibility of the prosecution version, particularly when the reason as to why these were absent in the relevant documents has been plausibly explained by the witnesses, and after consideration accepted by the trial Court and the High Court. Thus, the appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal, which we direct. Appeals dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Credibility of Witnesses2. Non-explanation of Injuries on Accused3. Acquittal of Co-accused and its Impact4. Inaction of Witnesses during the IncidentSummary:1. Credibility of Witnesses:The appellants argued that the prosecution's case was vulnerable due to the lack of independent witnesses, as only the deceased's son and a close relative were examined. The Court held that relationship does not affect the credibility of a witness. It was noted that a close relation would not typically conceal the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The Court cited precedents such as *Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Masalti v. State of U.P.*, emphasizing that the testimony of relatives should not be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased. The Court reiterated that each case must be judged on its own facts and that the plea of false implication requires a careful approach and analysis of evidence.2. Non-explanation of Injuries on Accused:The appellants contended that the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused should lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case. The Court referred to *Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar* and *Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar*, stating that non-explanation of injuries may indicate that the prosecution's evidence is not wholly true. However, the Court clarified that this is not an invariable rule and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the evidence is clear, cogent, and credible, the mere non-explanation of injuries does not necessarily lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case.3. Acquittal of Co-accused and its Impact:The appellants argued that since two of the accused were acquitted on similar evidence, the remaining accused should also be acquitted. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply in India. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and that the conviction of an accused can be maintained even if other co-accused are acquitted, provided the evidence against the convicted accused is sufficient and credible.4. Inaction of Witnesses during the Incident:The appellants questioned the credibility of the witnesses (PWs 9 and 10) due to their inaction during the incident. The Court noted that the witnesses were unarmed and the accused were armed with deadly weapons. The Court held that the instinct of self-preservation can be a dominant instinct and that the inaction of the witnesses in such a situation cannot be a ground for discarding their evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants. The Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence against the accused-appellants was credible and sufficient. The appeals were deemed without merit and were accordingly dismissed.