Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala,Rep.By vs Jaison ,S/O Antony on 6 October, 2025
1
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2506 OF 2006
JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2005 IN SC NO.98 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN S.C. NO. 98/2004:
JAISON, AGED 30, S/O.ANTONY, THEKKA VALYAPARAMBATH VEETTIL,,
NEAR KALLAKASSERI TEMPLE, CHEMMANATHKARA, T.V.PURAM
PANCHAYATH, VAIKOM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
SRI.V.A.NAVAS
Sri. JAYASHANKAR P.G., STATE BRIEF
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY SMT. HASNAMOL N.S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2025, ALONG
WITH CRL.A.707/2012, THE COURT ON 06.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 707 OF 2012
JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2005 IN SC NO.98 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM
CP NO.29 OF 2002 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
1 JAISON, S/O ANTONY,
THEKKA VALIYAPARAMBATH VEETIL, NEAR KALLAKASERI TEMPLE,
CHEMMANATHAKARA, T.V.PURAM PANCHAYATH, VAIKOM.
2 BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE, THAZHATHE VEETTIL,, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE,
UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 MOHANAN @PHUMBAR MOHANAN
S/O.PRABHAKARAN,MUTTATHEVELI VEETTIL,, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE,
UDAYAMPEROOR DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.T.JOSE
SRI.G.SABASTIAN
SRI.SANJAY THAMPI
SRI. JAYASHANKAR P.G
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2025, ALONG
WITH CRL.A.2506 OF 2006, THE COURT ON 06.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
'C.R'
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal Nos.2506 of 2006 & 707 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the State and the first accused in S.C.
No. 98 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II),
Ernakulam challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2005. The State is
challenging the acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC and the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the
offences under Sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The first accused
is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the
offence under Section 324 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, because of
previous enmity and in furtherance of their common intention, to murder
PW1 and cause hurt to PW2, joined together at a place near Narasimha
Swamy temple at Udayamperoor on 05.08.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. and
accused Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully restrained PW1, and the first accused
stabbed PW1 with a knife below the left chest with intention to kill him
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
and when PW2 intervened, the first accused inflicted a cut injury with
the knife above the ankle portion of the left leg and caused hurt and the
accused are thereby alleged to have committed the offences under
Sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
3. Before the trial court, when the accused persons pleaded not
guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked
Exhibits P1 to P20 and MOs 1 to 5 series. The chemical analysis report is
marked as Exhibit C1 and from the side of the defence, Exhibits D1 to
D3 are marked.
4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
found the first accused guilty under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment for two years and the first accused was found
not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and accused Nos. 2 and
3 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 307
r/w 34 IPC.
5. Heard Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor and
Sri. Jayashankar P.G., the learned State Brief-advocate representing the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2506 of 2006 and the respondents in the
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
connected appeal, Crl. Appeal No. 707 of 2012.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs
1 and 2, injured witnesses, regarding the occurrence and overt acts
committed by the accused persons are not appreciated by the trial court
in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the evidence of
injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling
reasons exist, their evidence are not to be discarded lightly. It is argued
that for attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC, the court has to see
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or
knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section, as held
by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil
and Others [1983 KHC 367]. It is also argued that the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2 would clearly show that accused Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully
restrained PW1 at the time of occurrence so as to help the first accused
to stab PW1 and therefore, the findings in the impugned judgment are
liable to be set aside.
7. The learned State Brief, Adv.Jayashankar P.G., representing
the accused persons, argued that there is nothing in the evidence of PWs
1 and 2 to show that the accused persons committed the alleged acts
with pre-meditation and their evidence clearly shows that the alleged
incident occurred after a verbal quarrel between PW2 and the first
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
accused and in the absence of satisfactory evidence to show that the
alleged act was done with the intention or knowledge as contemplated
under Section 307 IPC, there is no reason to interfere with the findings
of the trial court in this regard. The learned State Brief also argued
that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the involvement and alleged
overt acts of the second and third accused are contradictory and
inconsistent and Exhibit P15, report for adding the name and address of
accused Nos. 2 and 3, is dated 11.08.2001 and in the absence of
independent evidence regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and
3, the trial court rightly acquitted them and there is no reason to
interfere with the findings of the trial court in this regard.
8. Exhibit P10, FIR in this case, was registered by PW13, Head
Constable, on the basis of Exhibit P4 intimation from PW7, Casualty
Medical Officer of Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam on 06.08.2001 for
the offence under Section 324 IPC. According to PW13, when he reached
the Medical Trust Hospital, on getting telephone message from the
hospital, the injured was in the operation theatre and there was no other
person having information about the incident and therefore, after
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
obtaining Exhibit P4, intimation letter from the doctor, he registered
Exhibit P10, FIR.
9. PW1 deposed that on 05.08.2001, at about 7.30 p.m., while he
was talking to his friend, Anil Kumar, inside the bus waiting shed at
Udayamperoor Madom bus stop, Jaison, fuser Mohanan and Biju came
there and there occurred a verbal altercation between the said persons
and his friend, Anil Kumar, and then the first accused, Jaison, stabbed
him with a knife, uttering to kill him. According to PW1, accused Nos. 2
and 3 caught hold of his hands to help the first accused to stab him with
the knife. PW1 would say that even though the first accused stabbed him
aiming at his left chest, he sustained injuries near his armpit. PW1 also
deposed that when his friend, Anil Kumar, intervened, there occurred
scuffle between Anil Kumar and Jaison and then Anil Kumar fell down
and Jaison inflicted a cut injury with the knife above the ankle of the left
leg.
10. PW1 also deposed that in the previous year, there occurred an
incident in which the accused persons quarrelled with some children near
the bus stop and at that time, the witness supported the said children
and because of that previous enmity, the accused persons attacked
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
him.
11. PW2, Anil Kumar, deposed that on 05.08.2001, while he was
talking to PW1 at the bus stop, Jaison, Fuser Mohanan and Biju came
from southern side and on seeing the accused persons, himself and PW1
moved towards the front of the STD booth. According to PW2, the
accused persons reached there and started a verbal altercation with him.
PW2 would say that 6 months before, there occurred a verbal altercation
between Jaison and some children near the SNDP Temple and Jaison was
having enmity towards him for the reason that he has not supported
Jaison at that time. PW2 deposed that during the verbal altercation, Biju
and Mohanan came behind PW1 and caught on his hands from behind
and at that time, Jaison stabbed PW1, Deepu, with a knife. According to
PW2, when he intervened, there occurred a scuffle between him and
Jaison and then Jaison pushed him down and inflicted a cut injury with
the knife above the ankle of his left leg. The evidence of PW2 shows that
on sustaining the cut injury, he ran and entered into Pullukadu temple
and subsequently, he was taken to RCM Hospital by his friends on a
bike.
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
12. PWs 3, 4 and 5 are the independent witnesses examined from
the side of the prosecution; but, they turned hostile to the prosecution.
The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 shows that they have not witnessed the
alleged occurrence. The evidence of PW3 shows that he was conducting
a Milma booth near the bus stop and on 05.08.2001, at about 7.30 p.m.,
he heard a commotion there and saw Deepu and Jaison. According to
PW3, Jaison was holding a knife and it appeared to him that there
occurred a scuffle and immediately, he closed the shop and left the
place.
13. PW6 is a witness to Exhibit P2 scene mahazar. PW7 is the
doctor who examined PW1 in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam on
05.08.2001 at 9.55 p.m. and issued Exhibit P3, wound certificate. The
evidence of PW7 and Exhibit P3 shows that PW1 sustained the following
injuries:
1. Incised wound on the left infra axillary region penetrating into
chest cavity-bleeding profusely.
2. Aberration in the left index finger.
3. Pain on deep inspiration.
14. In Exhibit P3, the alleged cause of injury is noted as follows:
'ജയ്സൺ എന്നയാൾ കത്തികൊണ്ടു കുത്തിയത് മഠം സ്റ്റോപ്പ്
ഉദയംപേരൂർ വെച്ച് 5.8.2001ന് 7.15 pm'
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
The evidence of PW7 and Exhibit P3 shows that PW1 was conscious and
oriented and smell of alcohol was present in his breath at the time of
examination.
15. PW8 is the doctor who examined PW2, Anil Kumar in RCM
Hospital, Tripunithura on 05.08.2001 at 7.45 p.m. and issued Exhibit P5,
wound certificate. The evidence of PW8 and Exhibit P5 shows that PW2
sustained a cut injury lower one-third of left leg. In Exhibit P5, wound
certificate, history and alleged cause of injury is noted as 'assault'. In
cross examination, PW8 stated that the alleged cause of injury was
stated by the patient.
16. PW13 deposed that on 06.08.2001, while working in Hillpalace
Police Station as Head Constable, he got telephone message from
Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam that a patient by name Deepu, who
sustained stab injuries, is admitted there and accordingly, when he
reached the hospital, the injured Deepu was in the operation theatre and
there was no other person who is aware about the occurrence and
hence, he obtained Exhibit P4, intimation letter from the doctor, and
thereafter, on the basis of Exhibit P4, intimation letter, he registered
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
Exhibit P10 FIR.
17. PW15 is the Sub Inspector who conducted the investigation.
According to PW15, he recovered the dress worn by PW2 at the time of
occurrence and the dress worn by PW1 at the time of occurrence as per
Exhibits P12 and P13 mahazars respectively. The report filed by PW15
for adding Section 307 IPC is marked as Exhibit P14. PW15 deposed
that he arrested the first and second accused in this case on 10.08.2001.
According to PW15, the first accused made a statement that he kept the
knife under the bed in the Government Hospital where he was admitted
for treatment and accordingly, as led by the accused, the witness
proceeded to the Government Hospital, Puthenkavu and the accused
took out the knife from the underside of a bed in the hospital and the
same was recovered as per Exhibit P6 mahazar.
18. PW9 is an attestor to Exhibit P6 mahazar. Even though, PW9
admitted his signature in Exhibit P6, his evidence clearly shows that he
has not witnessed the alleged recovery of MO1 and that the accused is
not known to him.
19. The learned State Brief, Adv. Jayashankar P.G., representing
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
the accused, argued that the evidence of PW15, Investigating Officer,
regarding the alleged recovery of MO1, knife, on the basis of the alleged
confession statement of the first accused, does not satisfy the
requirements of law, as he has not deposed the exact statement made
by the first accused and the relevant portion of the disclosure statement
is also not produced or marked in evidence.
20. It is well settled that in order to enable the court to safely rely
upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is necessary that the
exact words attributed to an accused, as statement made by him, be
brought on record and, for this purpose, the Investigating Officer is
obliged to depose in his evidence the exact statement and not by merely
saying that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was drawn as
the accused was willing to take it out from a particular place, as held by
the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 KHC 7083]. In paragraphs 53 and 54 of
the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
53. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant
while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he
would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating
officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the
police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police
station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an
appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place
where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused
while in custody makes such statement before the two independent
witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words
uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the
panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law.
This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of S.27 of the Evidence
Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent
witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by
the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to
point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in
the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the
panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused
and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the
particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place
anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other
article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the
second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the
investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated
under S.27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the
investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the
aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.
54. The reason why we are not ready or rather reluctant to accept the
evidence of discovery is that the investigating officer in his oral evidence
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
has not said about the exact words uttered by the accused at the police
station. The second reason to discard the evidence of discovery is that the
investigating officer has failed to prove the contents of the discovery
panchnama. The third reason to discard the evidence is that even if the
entire oral evidence of the investigating officer is accepted as it is, what is
lacking is the authorship of concealment. The fourth reason to discard the
evidence of the discovery is that although one of the panch witnesses PW -
2, Chhatarpal Raidas was examined by the prosecution in the course of the
trial, yet has not said a word that he had also acted as a panch witness for
the purpose of discovery of the weapon of offence and the blood stained
clothes. The second panch witness namely Pratap though available was not
examined by the prosecution for some reason. Therefore, we are now left
with the evidence of the investigating officer so far as the discovery of the
weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes as one of the incriminating
pieces of circumstances is concerned. We are conscious of the position of
law that even if the independent witnesses to the discovery panchnama are
not examined or if no witness was present at the time of discovery or if no
person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to
lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the
police officer must be treated as tainted and the discovery evidence
unreliable. In such circumstances, the Court has to consider the evidence of
the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of discovery based on the
statement elicited from the accused on its own worth."
21. The learned counsel representing the accused persons pointed
out that the prosecution has no case that any of the hospital staff
witnessed the alleged recovery and no document is produced by the
prosecution to show that the first accused was admitted or treated in
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
Government Hospital, Puthenkavu.
22. On an analysis of the evidence of PW15, Investigating Officer,
and PW9, attesting witness to Exhibit P6, I find that the evidence of the
Investigating Officer regarding the recovery of MO1 alleged to be kept
under a bed in a Government Hospital after several days of the alleged
occurrence, is not at all reliable and the same does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, cannot
be accepted as legal evidence against the accused persons.
23. The prosecution is challenging the acquittal of the first
accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned Public
Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would clearly show
that the first accused committed the act with the intention to kill PW1
and with the knowledge that his act would cause the death of PW1 and
therefore, the trial court ought to have found that the first accused is
guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is true that to convict an
accused under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary to show that bodily
injury capable of causing death was inflicted and the question to be
considered is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
said Section.
24. The learned State Brief representing the first accused argued
that there is no evidence of any pre-meditation and that the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2 would clearly show that the initial verbal altercation was
between PW2 and the accused and only subsequently, the first accused
stabbed PW1. The evidence of PW3 indicates that there occurred a
scuffle between the first accused and PW1 and even as per the
prosecution case, the first accused stabbed PW1 only once and there
was no second attempt from the side of the first accused to stab PW1.
25. It is well settled that when a person sustains injuries in a fight
between two parties in a sudden quarrel, the case does not fall under
Section 307 IPC, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hari
Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others [AIR
1988 SC 2127]. I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial
court that the totality of the circumstances does not indicate that the
first accused committed the act with the intention or knowledge
contemplated under Section 307 IPC.
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
26. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court was
not justified in discarding the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 against accused
Nos. 2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to point out that PWs 1 and 2 categorically
deposed regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the
specific overt acts committed by them at the time of occurrence. The
learned State Brief representing the accused argued that the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2 regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3 does
not tally with the contemporaneous documents and that their evidence
regarding the involvement and alleged overtacts against accused Nos. 2
and 3 can only be seen as an after-thought or embellishment and there
is no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court in this regard.
27. As noticed earlier, PW13, Head Constable, registered Exhibit
P10, FIR, on the basis of Exhibit P4, intimation letter from the doctor. In
Exhibit P4, the alleged history is shown as assault by Jaison with a knife
and there is nothing in Exhibit P4 to indicate the involvement of accused
Nos. 2 and 3 in the incident. It is true that if any information disclosing a
cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., the said police
officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the
prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such
information.
28. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2013
(4) KLT 632 (SC)], the Honourable Supreme Court held that the object
sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as F.I.R. is
inter alia two fold: one, that the criminal process is set into motion and
is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest
information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable
offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc.,
later.
29. It is pertinent to note that in Exhibit P10, FIR registered under
Section 324 IPC, the name of accused Nos. 2 and 3 are not shown as
accused persons. In column No. 7 of Exhibit P10, the accused is shown
as 'Jaison', who is the first accused in this case. The evidence of PW15,
Investigating Officer, shows that he arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 on
10.08.2001 at 2.30 p.m. In cross examination, PW15 admitted that
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
when he arrested the second accused, there was no document before
the court to show the involvement of the second accused in this case. It
is also pertinent to note that Exhibit P15 report regarding the name and
address of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is dated 11.08.2001. Even though PW3
was declared hostile to the prosecution, his evidence indicates the
presence of the first accused and a scuffle between the first accused and
PW1 and there is nothing in the evidence of PW3 to indicate the
presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of occurrence. Therefore,
considering the delay in recording the statements of PWs 1 and 2 by the
Investigating Officer and the absence of the name of accused Nos. 2 and
3 in the contemporaneous documents, I find no reason to interfere with
the finding of the trial court that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to the
benefit of reasonable doubt and in that circumstance, I find no reason to
interfere with the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3.
30. The first accused is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2506 of
2006 and he is challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence
under Section 324 IPC. On behalf of the first accused, it is argued that
the trial court has not believed the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as against
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
accused Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, the trial court is not justified in
accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 against the first accused. It is
also argued that the prosecution has suppressed material facts and the
evidence of PW15, Investigating Officer, regarding the recovery of the
weapon of offence, is not at all reliable and in that circumstance, the
first accused is also entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.
31. It is well settled that the evidence of injured witness has
greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly, as held by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra
[(2023) 13 SCC 365]
32. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the principle
governing "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has got no application to the
courts in India and merely because a prosecution witness was not
believed in respect of one accused, the testimony of the said witness
cannot be disregarded against the other accused. The decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Ram Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [2021
(1) KLT OnLine 1159 (SC)] and T. G. Krishnamurthy & Ors. v. State
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
of Karnataka & Ors. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67], shows that the principle
governing "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has got no application to
the courts in India and therefore, it is the duty of the court to remove
the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth.
33. In this case, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the
involvement of the first accused and the overt act committed by him is
corroborated by medical evidence and contemporary documents marked
in evidence. There is no material contradiction or omission in the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as against the first accused. Even though, the
evidence of PW15 regarding the recovery of MO1 on the basis of
disclosure statement of the first accused is not reliable, it is pertinent to
note that PWs 1 and 2 identified MO1 as the knife used by the first
accused and further, for convicting an accused, recovery of the weapon
used in commission of an offence is not a sine qua non, as held by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Rakesh v. State of U.P. [2021 (4) KLT
OnLine 1170 (SC)].
34. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I find no
reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the first
Crl. Appeal No. 2506/2006 & connected case 2025:KER:72638
accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Therefore, the conviction
and sentence as against the first accused/appellant is confirmed.
For the above stated reasons, I find no merrit in the present
appeals. In the result, both the above appeals stand dismissed.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
