/2022 INSC 0717/ REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1697 OF 2011 RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH & ANR. …Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA          …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Aggrieved   by   the   conviction   for   an   offence   under   Section   302   IPC and   the   sentence   of   imprisonment   for   life   handed   over   to   them   by   the High  Court of  Karnataka,  reversing  the order   of acquittal  passed by  the Sessions   Court,   accused   Nos.1   and   2   have   come   up   with   the   above appeal. 2. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   and   the learned standing counsel for the State of Karnataka. 3. The appellants herein were prosecuted along with 20 other persons, before   the   II   Additional   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Bangalore,   for alleged   offences   under   Sections   143,   144,   148,   147,   448   and   302   read with   Section   149   IPC.   By   a   judgment   dated   8.8.2001,   all   the   accused except those against whom the prosecution abated, were acquitted by the Sessions Court. 4. However   on   appeals   filed   by   the   State   of   Karnataka,   a   Division Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   set   aside   the   acquittal   of   the appellants   herein   (A­1   and   A­2)   and   held   them   guilty   of   the   offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for  life.   But   the   acquittal  of   all   the   other   accused  was  confirmed   by   the High Court. 5. Aggrieved   by   the   said   judgment   of   reversal,   accused   Nos.1   and   2 have come up with the above appeal. 6. The   case   of   the   prosecution   was   that   on   30.11.1997   at   about   11 p.m.,   all   the   22   accused   formed   themselves   into   an   unlawful   assembly and   that   armed   with   deadly   weapons,   they   committed   trespass   by entering   into   the   house   of   the   deceased   Siddaraju   and   committed   the murder of the deceased in furtherance of a common object.   7. The   motive   for   the   murder   according   to   the   prosecution,   was   that when A­1 was passing through the house of the deceased, he heard the deceased hurling abuses in a foul and filthy language.  Though the victim was purportedly  abusing  his own father, A­1 mistook as though he was being   abused.   Therefore,   he   picked   up   a   quarrel   with   the   deceased   and thereafter went to the village, secured the other accused and went to the house of Siddaraju, broke open the door, pulled him out to the street and hacked him to death. 8. The case of the prosecution rested on the ocular testimony of PW­1 and   PW­4   who   were   the   mother   and   maternal   uncle   of   the   deceased. Though the father and sister of the deceased were also examined as PW­ 2 and  PW­3, they  were  not  treated  as  eye­witnesses  on  the   ground  that they had not seen the incidence. 9. Four   Panch   witnesses   examined   as   PWs   5,   6,   7   and   8   did   not support the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile.  PW­9, the   mahazar   witness   also   turned   hostile.   PW­10   was   the   doctor   who conducted the post­mortem on the body of the deceased. 10. At   this   stage,   it   is   relevant   to   note   that   PW­1,   mother   of   the deceased, gave  a  complaint  at  00.45  hrs    on  1.12.1997, on  the  basis  of which Exhibit P­8 FIR was registered.   Thereafter, one Nagamma, wife of the deceased is said to have given another complaint which was marked as   Exhibit   P­9.   On   the   basis   of   the   said   complaint,   a   second   FIR   was registered   for   more   offences,   including   offences   under   the   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But for reasons   not   known,   this   Nagamma   was   not   examined   as   a   witness, though cited as a witness in the charge sheet. 11. On   the   basis   of   the   oral   and   documentary   evidence,   the   Sessions Court recorded certain findings with regard to the appellants herein (A­1 & A­2) which are reproduced in the words of the Sessions Court itself, as follows:­ “1. PW1 speaks about the presence of only six persons and they are A1, A2, A3, A11, A16 and A18. Whereas A14 speaks about the presence   of   only   7   persons   viz..,   A1,   2,   8,   11,   16   and   12.   In   this way   PW1   speaks   about   the   presence   of   7   accused   persons.   The accused   stated   by   these   two   witnesses   are   not   exactly   the   same. Both the witnesses have spoken about only the presence of A1 ,A2, A11   and   A16   and   they   had   not   spoken   about   the   presence   of others. 2. The presence stated by PW1 and PW4 put together, are A1 to A3,   A8,   A11,   A12,   A16,   A18   and   A21.   Hence,   the   presence   of   all other   accused   persons   is   not   even   stated   by   any   of   the   witnesses and because of it there is no evidence against them. 3. The   very   fact   that   PW1   is   silent   about   the   presence   of   A8, A12 and A21 whose presence is stated by  PW4, goes to show that they   were   not   present.   Similarly   the   silence   of   PW4   about   the presence of A3 and A18 whose presence is spoken by PW1 goes to show   that   A3   and   A18   could   not   have   been   present.   Hence,   it clearly goes to show that there is false implication.  4. The  very  fact  that  the eye  witnesses  do not  speak about  the presence   of   most   of   the   accused   persons   goes   to   show   that   they have   been   falsely   implicated.   Hence,   from   the   beginning   the evidence of the prosecution is doubtful.  5. When   we   examined   the   evidence   relating   to   what   weapons were   used,   it   clearly   goes   to   show   that   it   is   only   an   exaggeration and   none   of   the   witnesses   are   speaking   the   truth   and   even   their presence becomes doubtful.  6. Accordingly   to   the   complaint,   accused­1   assaulted   deceased by   ‘bettukodali’     on   his   head.   A12   Ashwatha   assaulted   the deceased   by   club   all   over   the   body.   All   other   accused   persons assaulted   him   with   stones   and   bricks.   Hence,   according   to   the complaint   only   one   ‘bettukodali’   (axe),   one   club   were   used   in addition to some stones and bricks. But in evidence MO­1 To MO­6 clubs and MO­7 to MO­9 chopper and sickle and axe are marked. Hence the number  of  weapons  stated in  the  complaint  is different while compared to the weapons produced and marked in evidence. 7. PW1   goes   to   the   extent   of   saying   that   the   accused   had brought   ‘machu’,   sickle,   axe,   knife   and   clubs.   In   this   way   the weapons   stated   by   PW1   are   different   when   compared   to   the weapons   stated   in   the   complaint.   PW1   is   the   complainant   and because of it, she could not have stated such weapons which were not   even   stated   in   the   complaint.   This   goes   to   show   that   the evidence of PW1 is full of exaggeration and that is not acceptable.  8. In  the   complaint   the   overt   act   done   by   accused­1   is   that   he assaulted   with   bettukodali   on  the   head   of   the  deceased.   But   PW1 states that A­1 assaulted with axe on the ear of the deceased and it was   cut   off.   PW4   has   stated   that   accused­1   assaulted   by   sickle. Hence,   about   the   overt   act   done   by   accused­1,   there   is contradiction.  9. When   we   see   that   overt   act   done   by   accused­2   Thimma, there   is   contradicting   version.   In   the   complaint   it   is   only   stated that accused­2 broke open the lock of that house where Siddaraju was   kept   and   then   it   is   the   accused­1   who   assaulted   him   on   his head by axe and caused his death. But in evidence PW1 states that accused­2   had   brought   MO9   axe   and   assaulted   him.   He   gave another   version   by   stating   that   MO7   chopper   was   in   the   hand   of accused­2 Thimma. PW4 states that accused­2 assaulted with axe. In   this   way   about   the   overt   act   done   by   accused­2,   there   are different version and because of it their evidence is not acceptable.  10. PW1   states   accused   assaulted   her   also   and   she   sustained bleeding   injury   on   her   head   and   she   was   assaulted   with   club   by one   Ashwatha   and   she   took   treatment   of   Government   hospital Channapatna. In my opinion, this is only an exaggeration because, it is not stated in the complaint about assaulting her and there is no   medical   evidence   to   show   that   she   was   treated   at Channapatana hospital. 11. The   fact   that   the   eye   witnesses   PW1   and   PW4,   does   not speak   about   the   presence   of   many   of   the   accused   persons   as discussed   above   corroborates   the   inference   that   some   of   the accused persons are falsely implicated. Hence, all is not well in the prosecution   case   and   it   raises   substantial   doubt   and   the   accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt.” 12. On the basis of the above findings, the Sessions Court acquitted all   the   22   accused   except   those   against   whom   the   charges   abated. Therefore,   the   State   filed   two   appeals,   one   of   which   was   against   17 accused   and   the   other   against   2   accused.     The   appeal   in   Criminal Appeal No.1591 of 2001 was against the acquittal of A­7 and A­8 and the   other   appeal,   Criminal   Appeal   No.1590   of   2001   was   against   the acquittal of A­1 to A­3, A­5, A­6, A­9 to A­16, A­18, A­19, A­21 and A­ 22. 13. The   High   Court   dismissed   the   State’s   appeal   Criminal   Appeal No.1591  of  2001,  thereby  confirming  the  acquittal  of  A­7 and   A­8.  In the other appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal No.1590 of 2001, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of all the other accused except A­1 and A­2.   In   other   words,   this   appeal   was   partly   allowed   and   A­1   and   A­2 were convicted only for the offences under Section 302 IPC. 14. As   a   matter   of   fact,   the   charges   under   Sections   143,   144,   148, 147   and   448   read   with   Section   149   were   all   gone   even   against       A­1 and   A­2   who   are   the   appellants   herein.   A­1   and   A­2   have   been convicted   by   the   High   Court   only   for   the   offence   under   Section   302 IPC. 15. To come to the aforesaid conclusions, the High Court pointed out (i)   the   inconsistencies   in   the   evidence   of   PW­1   and   PW­4,   insofar   as the role played by all the accused other than A­1 and A­2;  (ii)  that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting all the 22 persons merely because PW­1 did not name all of them;  (iii)  that the principle “ falsus in   uno   falsus   in   ominbus ”,   cannot   be   invoked   in   cases   of  this   nature; and   (iv)   that there was consistency in the evidence of PW­1 and PW­4 with regard to the participation of A1 and A2 in the commission of the offence. 16. The  crucial  portion  of the  findings of  the  High  Court for  holding the   appellants   guilty   of   the   offence   under     Section   302   IPC   reads   as follows:­ “We find consistency in the evidence of PW­1 and PW­4 with regard to the participation of A1 and A2 in the commission of the   offence.   Both   have   deposed   and   have   stated   A1   and   A2 broke open the door of the house, A1 dragged Siddaraju from the   house,   hacked   him   with   a   sickle   on   the   face   and thereafter   A2   with   axe   assaulted   on   the   head   of   the deceased.   The   same   also   finds   a   place   in   the   complaint.   As such, this part of evidence of PW­1 and PW­4 is reliable and Trial Court erroneously acquitted A1 and A2 when there was sufficient material on record to hold them guilty.” 17.  But the above findings of the High Court appear to be illogical. The primary charge of the prosecution was that all the 22 accused, formed themselves   into   an   unlawful   assembly   with   the   common   object   of committing   the   murder   of   the   deceased   and   that   all   of   them   being members   of   the   unlawful   assembly   were   armed   with   deadly   weapons like clubs, bettu kudli, kodli etc. and that they committed the offence of rioting, trespass and murder. All these charges have now been held not proved against all the accused including A­1 and A­2 and the only offence held proved against A­1 and A­2 is the one under Section 302 IPC.  We do not know how, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the   conviction   of   only   2   out   of   the   22   accused   can   be   sustained   and that too only for the offence under Section 302 when the allegation of unlawful assembly, common object, trespass, rioting etc.  are held not proved against all of them. The State has not come up with any appeal against the acquittal of all the other accused. 18. Moreover, there was also no explanation as to why there were two First   Information   Reports.   According   to   PW­13,   the   Sub­Inspector   of Police,   he   received   the   oral   complaint   of   PW­1   at   00.45   hrs.   on 01.12.1997   and   he   claims   to   have   recorded   the   complaint,   registered the same as Crime No.182/1997 and sent the same to the Court. This FIR was marked as Exhibit P­8. 19. According to the same witness PW­13, the wife of the deceased by name   Nagamma   gave   a   written   complaint   at   the   hospital.   It   was marked as Exhibit P­9. PW­13 claimed that thereafter he registered a second FIR by including the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989.   This   FIR   was marked   as   Exhibit   P­7.   PW­13   further   claimed   that   the   further investigation of the second FIR was entrusted to the CPI, as the same related to serious offences. 20. The CPI was examined as PW­14. In his cross­examination he did not   make  a  whisper  as   to   what   happened  to   the   second   FIR.   All  that he   stated   was   that   he   took   the   statement   of   Nagamma   (wife   of   the deceased   who  gave   the   second   complaint)   only  at   the   time   of  inquest proceedings from 7:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. 21.   As stated earlier, Nagamma was cited as one of the witnesses in the Charge­Sheet, but she was not examined as a witness during trial. The   High   Court   has   recorded   that   her   whereabouts   were   not   known and  that,  therefore, she  could not  be  examined. Such  an  explanation is not found in the testimony of PW­14 22. It is true that the principle “ falsus in uno falsus in omnibus ” may not   have   unadulterated   application   to   criminal   jurisprudence.     The Courts   have   always   preferred   to   do   what   Hamsa,   the   mythological Swan,   is   believed   to   do,   namely,   to   separate   milk   and   water   from   a mixture   of   the   two 1 .   In   Arvind   Kumar   @   Nemichand   &   Ors.   vs. State of Rajasthan 2 ,               M.M. Sundresh J. speaking for the bench crystallized this principle as follows: “ 49 . The   principle   that   when   a   witness   deposes   falsehood, the evidence in its entirety has to be eschewed may not have strict   application   to   the   criminal   jurisprudence   in   our country.     The   principle   governing   sifting   the   chaff   from   the grain   has   to   be   applied.     However,   when   the   evidence   is inseparable and such an attempt would either be impossible or   would   make   the   evidence   unacceptable,   the   natural consequence  would  be one of avoidance.    The  said principle has   not   assumed   the   status   of   law   but   continues   only   as   a rule of caution.  One has to see the nature of discrepancy in a   given   case.     When   the   discrepancies   are   very   material shaking   the   very   credibility   of   the   witness   leading   to   a conclusion   in   the   mind   of   the   court   that   is   neither   possible to   separate   it   nor   to   rely   upon,   it   is   for   the   said   court   to either accept or reject.” 23. Therefore,   the   High   Court   was   right   on   first   principles   that   the evidence of PW­1 and PW­4 cannot be rejected by invoking the theory of  falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. 24. But when there are glaring contradictions between the testimony of   even   these   two   witnesses   on   the   type   of   material   object   used   and even   on   the   role   of   A­2,   the   very   foundation   of   the   case   of   the prosecution stood shaken. 25. As   a   matter   of   fact,   the   Trial   Court   took   note   of   the   absence   of evidence relating to the injuries suffered by PW­1. Nothing was stated 1 The idiom “sifting the chaff from the grain” has become very old and worn out and requires replacement 2 2021 SCC Online SC 1099 by   PW­1   in   the   FIR,   about   the   injuries   on   her   body,   but   she   spoke about   it   in   her   evidence.   Even   the   same   was   not   corroborated   by medical evidence. This is why the Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW­1 and PW­4. 26. To   overturn   such   a   verdict   of   acquittal,   handed   over   by   the Sessions   Court   after   disbelieving   PW­1   and   PW­4,   the   High   Court should   have   come   up   with   more   stronger   and   cogent   reasons   than what   has   been   recorded.   The   law   on   the   scope   of   Section   378   of   the Cr.P.C.,  is  too  well  settled.  Very  recently  this  Court  traced the   law  in Ravi Sharma vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Another 3 . The   impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is   not   in   accordance   with the law on the point. 27.   In   such   circumstances,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the conviction   of   the   appellants   herein   by   the   High   Court   cannot   be sustained.   Therefore,   the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned judgment   of   the   High   Court   insofar   as   it   relates   to   the   conviction   of appellants   is   set   aside.   The   appellants   shall   be   released   forthwith, unless   they   are   suffering   incarceration   in   connection   with   any   other case. No costs.  ....…………....................J.  (Indira Banerjee)   …..………......................J. 3 2022 SCC Online SC 859 (V. Ramasubramanian) AUGUST 10, 2022 NEW DELHI ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No. 1697/2011 RAMABORA@RAMABORAIAH & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s) IA No. 19590/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 30236/2022 - GRANT OF BAIL IA No. 51251/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 19588/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 10-08-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Anvita, Adv. Mr. Madhvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and His Lordship. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment and the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the conviction of appellants is set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith, unless they are suffering incarceration in connection with any other case. No costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)