Friday 25 January 2013

once a prosecution witness is declared hostile the prosecution clearly exhibits its intention not to rely on the evidence of such a witness.


 The Sessions Judge treated the evidence  of two
hostile witnesses as the spokesmen of the prosecution  case.
It is true that merely because a witness is declared hostile
his  evidence  cannot  be rejected  on that  ground  alone.
However, once a prosecution witness is declared hostile the
prosecution  clearly exhibits its intention not to  rely  on
the evidence of such a witness. In these circumstances, the
Sessions  Judge was not at all justified  in  treating the
version given by  P.Ws.  5 and 7 as  the  version  of the
prosecution itself.
2.  The principle of  'Falsus unus falsus omnibus' does not
apply to criminal trials and it is the duty of the Court  to
disengage  truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the
chaff  instead of taking at easy course  of  rejecting the
prosecution  case in its entirety merely on the basis  of  a
few infirmities. 

PETITIONER:
KESHORAM GORA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ASSAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1978




CITATION:
 1978 AIR 1096  1978 SCR  (2) 788
 1978 SCC  (2) 407


ACT:
Indian Penal Code--Sec. 99--302--304 Part II--Causing murder
in exercise of right of private defence--Exceeding right  of
private defence--Evidence of hostile witness--Admission  of
accused--Exculpatory and inculpatory part if separable.



HEADNOTE:
The appellant alongwith his brother Someshwar was prosecuted
under  section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. for
causing death of one Kalinath. According to the prosecution
Kalinath was uprooting pulses from his land when the accused
Keshoram  and  his brother Someshwar appeared on  the  scene
armed  with  shels along with their father and brother and
attacked  the deceased. The deceased received a number-  of
injuries  :is  a  result of which he  fell  down  and  died.
F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 3 Ramakanta Bora at about 11 a.m.
In  the F.I.R..  however only the name of  P.W.  1  Upendra
Chandra Bora was mentioned as a witness.  The defence of the
accused was  that the actual occurrence took place  in the
land  belonging to the father of the accused Kanwal  Chandra
and when the deceased tried to assault the ploughmen of the
accused the  accused injured the deceased  in exercise  of
their  right of private defence.  The Sessions Judge was  of
the  view  that as the prosecution  itself  presented two
contradictory  versions it failed to prove  the  manner  in
which  the occurrence took place and  accordingly  acquitted
the accused.
In an appeal the High Court accepted the evidence of the eye
witnesses and over-ruled finding of the Sessions Judge that
the prosecution had itself given two contradictory  versions
of the occurrence.
Partly allowing the appeal,
HELD  : 1. The Sessions Judge treated the evidence  of two
hostile witnesses as the spokesmen of the prosecution  case.
It is true that merely because a witness is declared hostile
his  evidence  cannot  be rejected  on that  ground  alone.
However, once a prosecution witness is declared hostile the
prosecution  clearly exhibits its intention not to  rely  on
the evidence of such a witness. In these circumstances, the
Sessions  Judge was not at all justified  in  treating the
version given by  P.Ws.  5 and 7 as  the  version  of the
prosecution itself. [790 C-E]
2.  The principle of  'Falsus unus falsus omnibus' does not
apply to criminal trials and it is the duty of the Court  to
disengage  truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the
chaff  instead of taking at easy course  of  rejecting the
prosecution  case in its entirety merely on the basis  of  a
few infirmities. [790 F-G]
3. The accused has clearly admitted that he did assault the
deceased  with a sharp cutting weapon as a result  of  which
the  deceased Kalinath fell down.  The prosecution  evidence
therefore  has to be judged in the light of  the  admissions
made by the accused. [791 B & C]
4.  It is well settled that where a confession or  admission
is  separable there can be no objection to taking  one part
into  consideration which appears to be true and reject the
other part which is false. [191 D]
Nishi  Kant Jha v. State of Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 1033;  relied
on.
5.  It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 5,  that the
land  in which the assault took place belonged to father  of
the  accused.  Although this 'Witness was  declared  hostile
this part of the statement made by him is amply corrobora-
789
ted  by the testimony of independent witness, namely  PW  6.
The  Police did not find blood marks either in the  land  of
the  deceased  or  in the land of  the accused.   From the
evidence  of  PW 6 it appears that brother  of the  accused
Someshwar  was first assaulted by Kalinath.  The  appellant,
therefore,  assaulted  Kalinath in the land  of his  father
after Someshwar was assaulted by the deceased. The evidence
of the other eye witness who has given the one sided version
of  the assault by the accused on the deceased  cannot  be
accepted  in  toto.   However, neither the  appellant nor
Someshwar received any injuries.  There can be no doubt that
the  appellant exceeded the right of private  defence. The
Court, therefore, altered the conviction of  the  appellant
from  tie under section 302/34 to section 304 Part It. [791
F-H, 792 A, C. D & E ]



JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 466 of
1976.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 13-8-1976  of the
Assam High Court in Crl.  A. No. 3/1971.
P. H. Parekh and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant.
S. K. Nandy for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL  ALI, J. This appeal is directed against the  judgmnet
of  the Assam High Court dated 13-8-1976 by which  the High
Court allowed the appeal and after reversing the judgment of
the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants, convicted the
accused Keshoram  Bora and Someshwar Bora  under  section
302/34 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. 'The
appellant Keshoram Bora has preferred this appeal under the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate  Jurisdic-
tion)  Act,  1973 as also under section 379 of the  Code  of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is contained in
the  judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for
us of repeat the same all over again.
According  to the prosecution, Kalinath Bora  was  uprooting
pulses from his land on 19th December, 1967 at about 9 a.m.
when  the accused Keshoram Bora and Someshwar Bora  appeared
on the scene armed with 'Shels' along with their father and
brother and attacked the deceased.  The deceased received  a
number of  injuries  as a result of  which  he fell  down.
F.I.R. was  Iodized  by P.W. 3 Roma Kanta  Bora  at  Police
Station Dhing at about II a.m. on the same day.  In the  F.
I.R.,however, only thename of P.W. I Upendra Chandra Bora
was mentioned as a witness. The police arrived  on   the
scene  of the occurrence and after the usual  investigation
submitted a charge-sheet against the accused as a result  of
which  they  were committed to the court  of  Sessions, but
ultimately acquitted as indicated above.
The  defence of the accused was that the  actual  occurrence
took  place  in the land belonging to the  father  of the
accused Kamal Chandra when the deceased tried to assault the
ploughmen  of the accused and in order to protect  them the
appellant  Keshoram  Bora  assaulted  the  deceased  with  a
pointed weapon resulting fatal injuries to him. The
12--119 SCI/78
790
accused thus pleaded that the complainant had come armed and
trespassed in the field of the accused and wanted to assault
his  men  as a result of which the appellant  assaulted the
deceased in self defence.
The  learned  Sessions Judge was of the view  that  as the
prosecution  itself  presented two  contradictory  versions,
hence  the prosecution failed to prove the manner  in  which
the  occurrence took place and accordingly  acquitted the
accused.
The central evidence against the accused consisted of P. Ws.
1,  2, 4,  5, 6, 7 and 9. This evidence was  sought  to  be
corroborated by an oral dying declaration said to have been
made  by the deceased to P.W. 4 in the presence of P. Ws.  1
and  2 as also by an extra judicial confession made  by the
accused to Roma Kant Bora, P.W. 3. Both the High Court and
the Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence furnished by the
dying  declaration and the extra judicial  confession. The
High  Court,  however, accepted the evidence  of  the eye-
witnesses  and overruled the finding of the  Sessions  Judge
that  the  prosecution had itself  given  two  contradictory
versions  of the occurrence.  We have beard counsel for the
parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court
and of the Sessions Court and we find ourselves in  complete
agreement  with the  reasons given by the  High  Court  in
accepting the prosecution case. The Sessions Judge  appears
to have treated the evidence of two witnesses, namely, P. W.
5  and 7 as the spokesmen of the prosecution case  when  in
fact  these  witnesses had been  declared  hostile  by the
prosecutor  and the court granted permission to the  prose-
cution to cross-examine these witnesses.  While it is true
,hat  merely  because  a witness  is  declared hostile his
evidence  cannot  be  rejected on that ground  alona  it  is
equally well settled that when once a prosecution witness is
declared  hostile  the prosecution  clearly  exhibits its
intention not to rely on the evidence of such a witness.  In
these  circumstances, therefore, the Sessions Judge was not
at all justified in treating the version given by P.W. 5 and
7 as the version of the prosecution itself.  The High Court,
therefore,  rightly  set aside the findings of the  learned
trial Judge on this point.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a  material
part  of the prosecution case having been rejected the High
Court was wrong in convicting the appellant on the  residue,
particularly when lie had been acquitted by the trial Court.
It is now well settled that the principle Falsus unus falsus
omnibus does not apply to criminal trials and it is the duty
of the court to disengage the truth from falsehood. to sift
the grain from the chaff instead of taking an easy course of
rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety merely on the
basis  of a few infirmities.  In the instant case, the High
Court  has clearly found that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2,  4,
6, and 8 proves beyond reasonable doubt that the  occurrence
had  taken  place  according to the manner  alleged  by the
prosecution.   Even  the appellant in  his  statement  under
section 342 Cr. P.C. stated as follows
     "Rahim  and  Mohammad were, ploughing  in our
     land.   They  told  me that  while  they were
     ploughing, Kalinath with a dao prevented them
     and so, they stopped ploughing.  At that time
     Kalinath was not there.  I asked both of them
     to
791
     plough again.  They began to plough.  Kalinath
     alias  Kalinath again came there with  a dao.
     He  uttered sic "'Who are you" and  chased  me
     raising  a dao to assault me.  Looking  hither
     and  thither I could find nobody. As soon  as
     he  ,came near me by raising  dao,  I  having
     found  no means, started assaulting  him with
   the holanga taken for bringing paddy.  After
a
     little while he fell down.  My elder  brother,
     Someshwar also arrived there."
It  will appear from the categorical admission made  by the
accused that  he  did assault the deceased  with  a.  sharp
cutting weapon which he ,,calls "holanga" as a  result  of
which  the deceased Kalinath fell down.  The  justification
pleaded by  the  accused  is that he did  so  in  order  to
,protect  his ploughmen from being attacked with a  dao.   A
perusal of the statement of the accused clearly reveals that
he  does not dispute having fatally assaulted the  deceased,
but  has  pleaded self defence. The  prosecution  evidence,
therefore,  has to be judged in the light of  the  admission
made, by the accused.  It was 'submitted by counsel for the
appellant  that it was not open to the court  to  take the
inculpatory   part   into  consideration  and reject the
exculpatory part.  It is submitted that an admission can  be
taken  either as a whole or not at all. It is well  settled
that where a confession or an admission is 'separable  there
can  be no objection to taking one part into  consideration
which appears to be true and reject the other part which  is
false. In the case of Nishi Kant Jha v. State of  Bihar(1)
this Court observed as follows:
     "In  circumstances  like these  there   being
     enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part
     of the statement of the appellant in Ex. 6 the
     High Court had acted rightly in accepting the
     inculpatory part and piecing the same with the
     other evidence to come to the conclusion that
     the  appellant was the person responsible for
     the crime."
In the instant case, the circumstances are almost  identical
with. the facts of the case of this Court cited above. Here
also, even the prosecution evidence proves that the deceased
was assaulted with a "holanga" as a result of which he died.
The only bone of contention between the prosecution and the
defence case  is  as to the situs or the  place  where the
assault took  place. According to  the  prosecution, the
occurrence  took  place in the land of the  deceased.  It
would, however, appear from the evidence of P.W. 5 that the
land  in  which the assault took place belonged  to  Kamal
Singh. Although  this witness was declared  hostile, this
part  of  the  statement  made by  the witness  is   amply
corroborated  by  the testimony of an  independent  witness,
namely, P.W. 6 Anarta Kumar Bora who also says that the land
belonged both to Kalinath and Kamal Singh.  The police does
not  appear to have found blood marks either in the land  of
the deceased or in the land of the accused which would have
been  a conclusive factor to determine where the  occurrence
took place.
(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1033.
792
Furthermore, from the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that the
accused Someshwar first assaulted the deceased with a  lathi
and  thereafter Someshwar and the appellant  surrounded him
and  the  appellant  pierced him with  a  'shel'.   In thsi
connection P.W. 6 has deposed as follows :
     "I  saw 'shels' in the hands of  Keshoram and
     Someshwar.  Between them, there was  Kalinath,
     Someshwar was first assaulted on the hands.  I
     cannot   say  with  what it  was  assaulted.
     Kalinath had a lathi in his  hands  measuring
     about  2 cubits. As soon  as  Someshwar was
     assaulted, Someshwar fell down on the  ground.
     Keshoram pierced Kalinath with a shel."
There was some controversy regarding the translation of the
sentence "Someshwar first assaulted on the hands".  We have,
therefore, consulted the original and on a proper reading of
the original it seems to us that what the witness stated was
that  Someshwar was  first assaulted on the  hands  by the
deceased Kalinath, with a lathi and as soon as Someshwar was
assaulted  he  fell  down and then  the appellant  Keshoram
pierced Kalinath with a shel.' Taking this statement of P.W.
6 with the admission of the appellant it is absolutely clear
that the appellant undoubtedly assaulted the deceased in the
land  of  his' father after Someshwar was assaulted  by the
deceased.
The  evidence  of the other eye-witnesses who seem  to have
given one sided version of the assault by the accused on the
deceased  cannot be accepted in toto.  It seems to  us that
the  deceased must have entered the land of the accused and
either tried to assault or may have assaulted Someshwar with
a lathi which provoked the appellant to assault the deceased
purporting  to act in self defence.  As however neither the
appellant nor Someshwar received any injuries, there can  be
no  doubt that the appellant exceeded the right of  private
defence.  Thus, on the acceptable evidence in the case, the
accused can only be convicted of an offence under'  section
304 Part 11 of the Penal Code for having exceeded the  right
of private defence.
For the reasons given above, we would, therefore. allow this
appeal to this extent that the conviction of the  appellant
is  altered  from  one under section 302/34  to that  under
section 304(2)/34  and the sentence is reduced  from life
imprisonment to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. As Someshwar
is reported to have died, it is not disputed that the appeal
has abated in. so far as he is concerned.
P.H.P.      Appeal allowed in part.
793




Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment