HC: Deposition of Sole Eyewitness found unreliable qua one Accused can't be a ground to discard it against other Accused,

 

 

The Calcutta High Court in one recent ruling has held that the testimony of a sole eyewitness with respect to an accused cannot be discarded on the ground that the same with respect to the other co-accused has been found to be unreliable.

The Bench comoprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the principal of false in one thing, false in everything ('falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' ) doesn't apply in Indian Laws with respect to appreciation of evidence. 

Brief Facts of the Case

In the present matter, the appellant had challenged the conviction under Section 341 and Section 302 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 30 days more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC.

High Court Observation

The Court at the outset noted that Prosecution case principally rests on the evidence of the sole eye witness. It is argued that genesis of the incident as narrated in Court is at variance with PW 5’s earlier statement before the Magistrate. 

The Court after analysing the submissions made by Counsels and material on record opined that in the light of the pieces of evidence, namely, First Information Report, inquest report and the medical evidence, there are sufficient corroboration with regard to the role played by the appellant in assaulting the deceased with a hasuli but not with regard to the role of other accused persons in the assault.

Noting that the principal ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply in the matter of appreciation of evidence, the Court further observed:

]

"When the Court is called upon to assess the evidence of a witness, it becomes its bounden duty to assess the evidence of the witness on the anvil of probability and separate the kernel of truth from the chaff of embellishment. The trial court has rightly assessed the evidence of PW 5 and upon ignoring her embellished effort to implicate other associates of the appellant in the crime, correctly relied on the role of the appellant as the sole assailant of the deceased."

In view of the above, the Court was in full concurrence with the line of reasoning of the trial Judge as the role of the appellant in the assault of the deceased not only transpires at the earliest opportunity in the inquest report/FIR but is also supported by the medical evidence at hand.

The Court noted that effort of sole eyewitness to implicate other accused persons appears to be over enthusiastic and was rightly mixed by the trial Judge due to lack of corroboration. However, her version vis-à-vis role of the appellant in the murder resonates with truth and finds corroboration from other sources and therefore the same shouldn't be ignored.

Hence, the acquittal of the other accused persons does not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case, vis-à-vis the appellant, the Court opined.

The conviction was confirmed accordingly. 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure