Supreme Court Upholds Conviction & Sentence for Section 302 Offenses

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Rohtas and Surender Singh, for offenses under Section 302/34 IPC. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, rejecting alleged deficiencies in the investigation, and noting the prompt FIR registration. The acquittal of co-accused did not impact the appellants' case, as the evidence against them was clear. The Court highlighted the duty to assess evidence meticulously, affirming the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply. The appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence confirmation by the High Court.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies.
3. Alleged deficiencies in the investigation.
4. Delay in FIR registration.
5. Contradictory defense pleas by the accused.
6. Acquittal of co-accused and its impact on the appellants' case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence Confirmation by the High Court:
The appeal challenges the judgment dated 13th March 2008 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2), for offences under Section 302/34 IPC by the Trial Court. Initially, six accused were tried, and the Trial Court convicted four while acquitting two. The High Court, upon reappreciation of evidence, affirmed the conviction of the appellants but acquitted two others.

2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The appellants argued that the testimonies of Bishan Singh (PW-1) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) were unreliable and aimed at falsely implicating them. The Trial Court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses to be natural and trustworthy. The Trial Court noted that both witnesses consistently stated the sequence of events, including the knife attacks by the appellants. The High Court reiterated that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were credible and supported by the prompt lodging of the FIR.

3. Alleged Deficiencies in the Investigation:
The appellants highlighted several alleged deficiencies, including:
- No seizure list of clothes of the deceased.
- Blood group of the deceased not ascertained.
- Non-production of the alleged knife in court.
- No independent witnesses for recovery and inquest.
- Variance between the FIR and the IO's report.
The Court found these deficiencies to be insignificant and trivial, noting that they did not undermine the overall reliability of the eyewitness testimonies and other corroborative evidence, such as the medical reports and recovery of human blood-stained soil from the crime scene.

4. Delay in FIR Registration:
The appellants contended that there was a delay in FIR registration, suggesting it was concocted. The Court observed that there was no delay; the FIR was registered promptly after the incident. Mohar Pal was admitted to the hospital and declared dead at 11:00 p.m., with the FIR registered at 12:15 a.m. The Court emphasized that the contemporaneous record did not indicate any undue delay.

5. Contradictory Defense Pleas by the Accused:
The defense initially claimed that Mohar Pal was injured in an earlier incident at 6:30 p.m., but later argued that he was injured near Anaj Mandi and brought to the hospital in a three-wheeler. The Court found these contradictory pleas to be baseless and unsupported by evidence. The prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and recovery of human blood-stained soil near the hospital, was found to be credible.

6. Acquittal of Co-accused and Its Impact on the Appellants' Case:
The appellants argued that they should be given the same benefit of doubt as the acquitted co-accused. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the evidence against the appellants was clear and distinct. The acquittal of co-accused Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) by the High Court did not undermine the quality of evidence against the appellants. The Court emphasized that the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" does not apply, and it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants, dismissing the appeal. The Court found no manifest error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks, failing which the local police were instructed to take necessary action.

---