Witness testimony cannot be discarded entirely due to exaggerations or embellishments in criminal cases

SC held that witness testimony cannot be discarded entirely due to exaggerations or embellishments. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in India where exaggeration tendency is common. Despite 24 injured eye witnesses in a case involving house burning, assault, and theft, the HC improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction by affirming trial court's dismissal without proper reasoning. SC emphasized revisional jurisdiction requires exceptional circumstances showing gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality, or perversity. Matter remanded to HC for proper reconsideration with judicial application of mind.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of interference by the Supreme Court with a High Court judgment affirming an acquittal.
2. Evaluation of eyewitness testimonies and their consistency.
3. Consideration of material evidence related to charges other than murder.
4. Conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence.
5. Application of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Interference by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court addressed the preliminary question regarding its power to interfere with a High Court judgment affirming an acquittal. It was clarified that the restriction under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court cited "Dharma v. Nirmal Singh" and "State of Rajasthan v. Islam" to affirm that it could review the entire material to ensure justice if the High Court's view was unreasonable.

2. Evaluation of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The trial court had observed that several eyewitnesses revealed material facts for the first time during the trial, which were not mentioned during the police investigation, leading to their acquittal. The Supreme Court, however, revisited the testimonies of PWs 5, 7, and 14 and found no significant variations in their accounts. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies are natural and do not necessarily discredit the entire testimony. The principle that a few consistent eyewitness accounts can sustain a conviction in cases involving many offenders and victims was reiterated, citing "Masalti v. State of U.P."

3. Consideration of Material Evidence Related to Charges Other Than Murder:
The High Court and trial court had overlooked evidence concerning charges other than murder, such as house burning and unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court dismissed the evidence related to house burning due to non-production of burnt articles, despite the seizure list (Ex. 1) indicating otherwise. The Court emphasized that evidence on unlawful assembly and common object could be inferred from the available material, and separate evidence for these aspects was unnecessary.

4. Conflict Between Ocular Testimony and Medical Evidence:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ignored the fact that both lathis and sharp-edged weapons were used in the assault. It reiterated that ocular testimony should prevail over medical evidence if found trustworthy and credible, citing "State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal." The Court found that the High Court failed to consider whether the trial court's judgment was perverse due to overlooking material evidence.

5. Application of Revisional Jurisdiction by the High Court:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not applying its judicial mind to determine whether the trial court's judgment was perverse. It noted that the High Court did not consider evidence related to charges other than murder and failed to provide cogent reasons for its conclusion. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a gross miscarriage of justice, manifest illegality, or perversity in the lower court's judgment, citing "Sheetala Prasad v. Shree Kant."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction properly and overlooked material evidence. It set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for reconsideration on merits, emphasizing that the observations made should not influence the High Court's decision. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the High Court to decide the revision petition in accordance with the law.

---