NARSA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.