If Separation Of Truth From Falsehood Is Impossible, There Can’t Be Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused
The Supreme Court observed that the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and has not assumed the status of the rule of law in the Indian context.
But an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood, and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction, the Court said while acquitting murder accused.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “Though the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is only a rule of caution and has not assumed the status of a rule of law in the Indian context, an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction (See Narain vs. State of M.P.1). We find that to be so in the case on hand.”
Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Adarsh Dubey appeared for the Respondent.
Twenty-two persons stood accused of the murder of one Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare and were tried by the Sessions Court, which held that nine of them were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 324, both read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Aggrieved thereby, all nine of them filed appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Bombay High Court. By the judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court sustained the conviction of Appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and acquitted the remaining six appellants on the ground that the charges levelled against them were not specific in relation to the injuries afflicted on the deceased and other injured persons.
Appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC, but their conviction under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 148 of the IPC were confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, Appellants Nos. 3 and 5 filed an appeal before the Apex Court. Appellant No. 2 did not choose to file an appeal against the confirmation of his conviction.
The case of the Prosecution was that in April 2006, the deceased (Sarpanch) and his family members were attacked by the Appellants with axes and sticks at the residence of the deceased. An FIR was registered, and the post mortem report of the deceased revealed that he had suffered as many as nine injuries. The cause of his death was ascertained as - head injury and intracranial haemorrhage with multiple fractures. Nine other persons were said to have been injured during the incident. The cause for the altercation was stated to be political rivalry.
The Court noted, “Picturing a scenario where twenty-two persons entered into the premises armed with axes and sticks on a dark night, even if dimly lit by moonlight, it is difficult to believe that, in the melee that ensued, any person who was under attack would be in a position to identify, clearly and with certainty, as to who was assaulting whom and with what weapon. More so, as PW-1 claimed that Sambhaji, Accused No. 4, was one of the first persons to enter the premises along with Khemaji, Accused No. 2, but no attack was attributed to him, leading to his acquittal by the High Court.”
The Court said that the PW-1, i.e. wife of the deceased, could have identified the appellants who first entered the premises armed with axes and launched the initial attack on her husband, but given her contrary statements on even these crucial facts, her evidence was placed wholly in the realm of uncertainty and no credence could be given to her solitary testimony on any aspect. It was also observed that the juxtaposition of her deposition before the Trial Court and her complaint demonstrated that she embellished her narration of the attack, which resulted in inconsistencies.
The Court held that the Appellants had suffered ten years’ incarceration, and given the lacunae in the case of the prosecution and the shaky evidence, the benefit of doubt could be given to the Appellants.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellants.
Cause Title: Saheb and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:INSC:700)
Appearances:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Vatsalya Vigya and Advocate Pranjal Chapalgaonkar.
Respondent: Advocate Adarsh Dubey, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna and Preet S. Phanse.