BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th of November, 1988 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the accused Narsaram in the offences under sections 326 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the co-accused persons namely Moda Ram, Ummed Singh and Mohan Lal, in the offence under Sections 326/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to a period of two years' Rigorous Imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of three months for offence under Section 326 IPC and three months simple imprisonment for the offfence under section 323/34 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) FOR an occurrence which took place on 25th of February, 1984 at about 1. 00 AM in village Chamunderi, juxtaposed to the shop of Narsa Ram, four accused persons namely, Narsa Ram, Moda Ram, Mohan Lal and Ummed Singh were charged for the offences under Sections 332 and 333/34 IPC. The complainant of this case is PW/11 Mahipal Singh, who happened to be the Branch Manager of Marwar Gramin Bank, Chamunderi, on the date of occurrence. It has been alleged that while going to the Bank at 10. 00 AM, the complainant Mahipal Singh was assaulted by the accused Narsa Ram who hit his head by a wooden `gunia'. He fell on the ground. Soon after it the other co-accused persons Moda Ram, Ummed Singh and Mohan Lal came there and they also started beating him, with the result, he sustained so many injuries on different parts of his body. The complainant Mahipal Singh submitted a written complaint, Ex. P/4 to the SHO, Nana, who registered the case and commenced investigation. The Investigating Officer visited the site of occurrence, prepared a site plan Ex. P/2, description memo Ex. P/1, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. recovered and seized the blood stained clothes such as trouser, shirt, baniyan and jersey of the complainant vide memo Ex. P/3, got the complainant medically examined and after usual investigation filed the police report against the accused respondents in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali who in turn committed the same to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali for trial, where all the four accused appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 332 and 333/34 IPC but convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Heard Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. JPS Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned judgment of the lower Court, along with the prosecution and defence evidence, available on record. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has vehemently questioned the conviction of the accused appellants and their sentences. He has argued that the statements of PW/11 Mahipal Singh, PW. 3 Karan Singh and PW. 5 Vijay Singh are full of contradictions with regard to the number of injuries, the nature of injuries, the site of injuries and the weapon alleged to be used by the accused appellant Narsa Ram. He has drawn my attention towards the statement of PW. 11 Mahipal Singh, as narrated in his cross-examination and has submitted that at one place the witness states the use of a weapon `gunia' and at other place he speaks of `dharia'. Mr. Jain has further argued that PW. 11 Mahipal Singh deposes of two injuries caused on his head by the accused Narsa Ram, whereas the injury report Ex. P/6 reveals that Mahipal Singh sustained only one incised wound on his right side of head. There is no other injury caused by the accused Narsa Ram at the back of his head or on the upper side of his head. Rest of the three injuries are abrasion and bruises, which are simple in nature. There are lots of infirmities in the case and the offences under Sections 326 and 323/34 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. Hence, they deserve to be acquitted of all the charges. At the end of the arguments, the learned counsel for the accused appellants has prayed that if the Court finds that the accused are guilty of the aforesaid offences and they should be convicted, then in that eventuality, keeping in view the fact that the appeal has turned very old and the occurrence took place in the year 1984, and thereafter the accused appellants have not been found to be involved in any other criminal case, they should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of Cr. P. C. In support of this arguments the learned counsel has cited one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Habbalappa Dundappa Katti and others vs. State of Karnataka (AIR SC on CD-ROM 1950-2007 ). Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. JPS Choudhary has submitted that the contradictions or improvements emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are of flippant nature and these contradictions do not assail the substratum of the case. The contradictions are easily reconcilable. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injured Mahipal Singh and others were medically examined by Dr. Shyam Lal PHC, Bera whereas the injury of PW/11 Mahipal Singh was X-rayed at Pali which is too distant a place from PHC, Bera. If the medical examination of the injured Mahipal Singh takes place on 25th of February, 1984 and his skull bone was X-rayed on 29th of February, 1984 at Pali, it cannot be said that the bone injury has been manipulated and a false medical report has been managed by the prosecution. The alleged offences are proved against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of the lower Court is perfectly just and legal, which calls for no interference and the appeal of the appellants must be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard both the parties and considered their submissions, it may be emphasized that the maxim falsus in uno `falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006 Cri. L. R. SC 678) that if the maxim `falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is accepted in our country, there is every fear of the administration of criminal justice coming to a deed-stop. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the witnesses in it just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. In such a situation, the duty is cast upon the Court to shift the evidence with care and caution. I have perused the entire prosecution and defence evidence available on record and find that the judgment of the lower Court is cogent and sound and has been delivered after detailed analysis and a proper appreciation of the evidence. The conviction of the accused appellants, in various offences, is found to be well merited and supported by the evidence available on record, with which I fully concur. So far as the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the accused appellants is concerned, I find merit in the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that the occurrence took place on 25th of February, 1984 and the accused appellants were convicted in the aforesaid offences by the trial Court on 5th of November, 1988. This criminal appeal has been pending for more than 191/2 years. The accused appellants have been facing the trauma of trial for the last 24 years and thereafter they have been found to be involved in any other criminal case. This criminal case being the first one and no previous conviction found against them, regard being had to the antecedents, conduct and character, the accused appellants deserve to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 360 of Cr. P. C. ;