The Hindu : National : Conviction is possible even on deficient evidence, says Bench

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Conviction is possible even on deficient evidence, says Bench

J. Venkatesan

“Residue [evidence] is sufficient to prove guilt”

Those convicted need not be acquitted merely because some of the accused were
Normal discrepancies in evidence was possible; court must separate grain from the chaff

New Delhi: It will be open to the court to convict an accused, notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove his guilt, the Supreme Court has held.

“Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue [evidence] is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused; notwithstanding the acquittal of a large number of other co-accused, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large numbers of other persons are accused, the court has to carefully screen the evidence. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff,” said a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P. Sathasivam.

Rule of caution

This ruling assumes significance in the context of a large number of criminal cases ending in acquittal for want of adequate evidence or due to witnesses turning hostile.

“Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same [it] does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted,” the Bench said.

Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said “the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded.”

The Bench said:

“It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. The maxim is a dangerous one, especially in India, for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come a dead stop.

“The maxim 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.”

The case

In the instant case, appellant Dalbir Singh was sentenced to life for murdering his uncle following a property dispute. The trial court convicted the appellant, but acquitted all the co-accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction and life sentence. The present appeal is directed against the High court judgment mainly on the ground that he alone could not be convicted when the co-accused were acquitted for want of credible evidence.

The apex court Bench dismissed the appeal pointing out that normal discrepancies in evidence was possible and the court should separate grain from the chaff and truth from falsehood.

“Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto,” the Bench held.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National