Concurrent conviction evidence upheld where eyewitness testimony was reliable and minor discrepancies did not displace the core prosecution case.

Concurrent findings of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were held not to warrant interference under Article 136 absent manifest error, procedural illegality, or perversity. The Court treated the eye-witness account as natural and trustworthy, sufficient to prove that the appellants inflicted the initial knife blows, and regarded discrepancies, investigative lapses, and non-production of some articles as minor and non-fatal. The acquittal of certain co-accused for later events did not affect the separate role attributed to the appellants. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was rejected, and truth was severed from embellishment where the evidence permitted. The conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 called for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of alleged infirmities in the prosecution case, contradictions in the evidence, and the acquittal of some co-accused.

Analysis: Interference with concurrent findings of fact in an appeal under Article 136 is warranted only where there is manifest error of law or procedure or perversity. The eye-witness testimony of the two material witnesses was found natural, trustworthy, and sufficient to establish that the appellants individually inflicted the initial knife blows on the deceased. The alleged deficiencies in investigation, non-seizure or non-production of certain articles, and discrepancies in the surrounding details were treated as minor and not destructive of the core prosecution case. The acquittal of co-accused in respect of the later part of the occurrence did not dilute the distinct and separable role attributed to the appellants. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was rejected as inapplicable, and the court accepted the settled rule that truth may be separated from falsehood where the evidence permits.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants was upheld and no interference was called for.

---