Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Land Dispute Case: Yogendra vs. State of Rajasthan (2013)

Case Background

In 1979, Karan Singh and Kewal Singh bought land in Ajan village from Shodan Singh and Raghubir Singh. They had been cultivating the land since then. On October 18, 1999, Shodan Singh (PW.1) reported to the Udyog Nagar Police Station that Karan Singh and others had sown mustard on the land about a week prior.

On the same day, at noon, Shodan Singh’s party learned that the appellants and others were removing the mustard with a tractor. The complainant party, including Karan Singh and Kewal Singh, went to the site. They found the accused destroying their crops, armed with lathis, kattas, and farsas. One of them had a gun.

When the complainant party tried to stop them, Ratan Singh instigated the others to attack. The accused assaulted the complainant party, injuring 15 people. Vijay Pal and others arrived at the scene after hearing the commotion. Shodan Singh (PW.1) also witnessed the incident while returning from his fields. Some people from the complainant’s side suffered firearm injuries, while others were hurt by lathis and farsas. The accused fled after the attack.

The injured were taken to the hospital. Veer Pal and Satyendra sustained grievous injuries and were referred to Jaipur. A case was registered against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted nine accused, including the present appellants, under Sections 302, 302/149, 148, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines.

The High Court modified the Trial Court’s judgment. It acquitted some accused, while upholding the conviction of Sita Ram, Ranveer, Yogendra, Ramveer, and Balla. The High Court altered the conviction of Sita Ram and Ramveer from Section 302 to 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The other convictions and sentences remained intact.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Arms Act, 1959.

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly. It states, “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the possession of illegal arms.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court acquitted four accused based on the same evidence used to convict them. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants should also be overturned.
• They contended that there were significant discrepancies and contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies, making the evidence unreliable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court re-evaluated the evidence and rightly concluded that the appellants were responsible for the death and injuries.
• The State emphasized that most injured persons testified as witnesses, and their presence at the scene could not be doubted.
• The State argued that the injured witnesses would not falsely implicate anyone, especially in a case involving the loss of life.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants can be sustained when some co-accused were acquitted based on the same evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 255* to clarify that the doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. The Court used this case to support its position that the testimony of a witness can be relied upon even if some parts are found to be false.
• The Court referred to Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962, Ugar Ahir & Ors., v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277, and Nathu Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 4451 in the context of the doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” to further support its position.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. This means that if a witness is found to be lying about one aspect of their testimony, it does not mean that their entire testimony should be discarded. The Court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. The Court focused on separating falsehoods from the truth and upheld the conviction of the appellants based on the reliable parts of the evidence.

The court also considered the fact that the appellants were armed while the complainant party was unarmed. The court also noted that the appellants were the aggressors in the incident.

Key Takeaways

• The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. Courts must assess the credibility of each witness separately and not discard the entire testimony if a part is found to be false.
• The testimony of injured witnesses is given significant weight, as it is unlikely that they would falsely implicate someone in a case involving loss of life.
• Courts will examine the evidence meticulously, and the presence of some discrepancies in witness testimonies does not automatically invalidate the entire evidence.
• The courts will consider who was the aggressor in a case of violence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, who were on bail, must surrender within four weeks. If they fail to surrender, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, shall take them into custody to serve the remaining part of their sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. The court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a witness can be relied upon. This clarifies the approach courts should take when assessing witness testimony, especially when some parts of it are deemed unreliable. This judgment reinforces the principle that the court should make every attempt to separate falsehoods from the truth.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The Court clarified that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing witness testimonies individually and separating truth from falsehood. The judgment reinforces the reliability of the testimonies of injured witnesses and the significance of medical evidence in criminal cases.