Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the appellant for murder could be sustained on the basis of the prosecution eyewitness evidence notwithstanding the false implication of the co-accused and the attack on the credibility of the witnesses.
Analysis: The prosecution relied on direct eyewitness testimony that the appellant quarrelled with the deceased, obtained a knife and stabbed him. The Court held that the first information report made by a co-accused was not substantive evidence and could not be used against the appellant. It further held that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law in India but only a rule of caution, so that disbelief of the witnesses as against the co-accused did not require rejection of their testimony in its entirety. The Court also reiterated that the burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt and that the presumption of innocence cannot be displaced by reversing that burden onto the accused. On a review of the evidence, the Court found the High Court justified in preferring the prosecution version over the trial court's view.
Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant was upheld and the appeal failed.