Supreme Court of India Judgment related to fatal clash between political rivals in Kerala in 2002. Appellants A1 to A3 and A11 and A12 challenged the High Court of Kerala’s partial confirmation of their convictions for murder and other charges, while other accused individuals were acquitted. The court considered arguments regarding the timeliness and content of the initial police report (FIR), the recovery of evidence, and the credibility of eyewitness testimony despite minor inconsistencies.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment and affirming the principle that minor contradictions and potential investigative flaws do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution’s case if the evidence is otherwise credible.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 r/w 149 – Explosive Substance Act,1908, Section 5 –Murder – Inconsistency and contradictions – Principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ – Held that though there is a variance in the statements of the witnesses, it is minor and not of such a nature which would drive their testimony untrustworthy – This court finds the deposition of witnesses PW1, 2 and 4 to be honest, truthful, and trustworthy – Hence, the observations made by the High Court in this regard are well reasoned – Either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc. – The omission to state “police” jeep in statement of PW1 does not constitute a material omission or contradiction – It is a natural human conduct that to save the life of someone, the entire focus of the person in such a situation would be to take the injured to the hospital rather than wasting time on giving minute details – Either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc. – Entire submissions of the appellants were that since there are contradictions, the entire story of the prosecution is false –Held that the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence and only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this Court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false – It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff – In a given case, it is also open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons, like in the present case – Mere act of throwing the bomb by A3 would give rise to reasonable suspicion that he did not have the bomb in his control for a lawful object – The High Court has rightly upheld the conviction of A3 for Section 5 of the Act, 1908 – On appreciation of the evidence unable to find any fault with the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(Para 14 to 19, 24 to 27)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 r/w 149 – Explosive Substance Act,1908, Section 5 – Murder – Defective investigation – Argument from the appellants that the prosecution has not conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial manner as they have tried to rope in innocent persons who were not present at the spot – Held that though a cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record suggests that the investigation has not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner yet on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone – It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc. – It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency
(Para 21, 22)
Edakkandi Dineshan@ P.Dineshan V. State Of Kerala
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 28: (DoJ 06-01-2024)
