The appellants, Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal, challenged their convictions for murder and other offences, initially upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the prosecution’s reliance on the oral testimonies of the deceased’s family members, including his father, wife, brother, and young nephew, as the primary evidence. However, the court found significant inconsistencies, embellishments, and contradictions between these initial statements and later testimonies, casting substantial doubt on their veracity. Furthermore, a crucial medical finding regarding the cause of death was re-evaluated, weakening the prosecution’s claim about a gunshot wound and the relevance of a pistol recovered from one appellant. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted all appellants, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the unreliability of the primary evidence.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/34 – Murder – Conviction set aside – Appeal against conviction – Appreciation of evidence – Maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ – Held that maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not part of Indian law and jurisprudence and is, at best, a rule of caution, the entire evidence of these witnesses need not be discarded because some of their statements are proved to be factually incorrect – However, their depositions would have to be viewed with care and caution before they are accepted and acted upon – Enmity between the family of the deceased and some of the accused was admitted by the family members themselves – Their depositions before the Trial Court, naming all the accused and attributing specific overt acts to each of them, would have to be examined very carefully, given the variance in the initial version in the F.I.R. – This inconsistency dented the prosecution’s case in entirety even against Ramlal – All that Devisingh had reported at the time of registration of the F.I.R. was that he saw Ramlal, one of the five accused, and a man wearing a suit and shoes, who remained unknown, running away from the spot – He did not name any of the other accused but his deposition before the Trial Court was very much to the contrary, as he not only named them but also attributed specific overt acts to them – Similarly, the other family members, whose very presence at the spot becomes rather doubtful, furnished full-fledged details of how the accused attacked Mohan Singh – In this regard, the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-20), assumes great significance – He categorically asserted that none of these witnesses had stated the versions that they put forth before the Trial Court in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements – He affirmed that Devisingh, in his statement (Ex. D- 1), had stated as was recorded in the F.I.R. and did not mention anything about Madhubala, his daughter-in-law, becoming suspicious and about he, along with his other family members, going towards Chowpatty – The only other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the recovery of a 12-bore country made pistol from Arun, one of the appellants – However, surprisingly, no bullet was recovered from the body of Mohan Singh, the deceased, though there is no evidence of any exit wound – Further, Dr. (PW-2) candidly admitted to the effect that what was initially stated by him to be a gunshot wound was actually caused by a stabbing weapon – In consequence, the cause of Mohan Singh’s death being a ‘gunshot wound’ is itself open to question and, therefore, the so-called recovery of the pistol from Arun does not help the prosecution – Held that the entire case of the prosecution hinges only upon the oral evidence of the family members of Mohan Singh, the deceased – However, their evidence is found to be completely untrustworthy and specious – Conviction of the appellants cannot rest solely on such doubtful testimonies – The Trial Court and the High Court erred in the appreciation of this dubious oral evidence and in drawing the proper inferences therefrom – The appellants would invariably have to be given the benefit of doubt in such circumstances, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment passed by the High Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge liable to be set aside.
(Para 16 to 20)
Arun V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 406: (DoJ 27-03-2025)
