Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Section 3 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 4 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
b. Though the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor1 held that there was no real distinction
between appeal against acquittal and an appeal
against a conviction, it was submitted that the
approach of this Court has been qualitatively
different in cases of appeals against acquittal.
c. It is submitted that this Court should be slow in
interfering with the judgment of acquittal of the
High Court, if the view of the High Court is a
possible one. The judgment of the High Court
ought not be set aside unless it is perverse.
d. On merits, it was submitted that the entire
genesis of the case is extremely doubtful. As per
the FIR, A-1 was the mastermind of the attack
1 AIR 1934 PC 227
17
and on her instigation the other accused
attacked the deceased. This version was
disbelieved by the Trial Court and A-1’s plea of
alibi was accepted. A-2 to A-5, A-8, A-24, A-43 to
A-47 were also acquitted by the trial Court. This
finding has attained finality as the Appellant-
The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 October, 2016
11. The principle of ‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has
not been accepted in our country.2 Even if some accused
are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness
2 See Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC
537 ¶19
19
is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by
relying on the evidence of the same witness. 3 Minor
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness
are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony
of a witness.4 The High Court was oblivious to this settled
position of law. The High Court highlighted the minor
inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of PWs- 1 to
3 and PW-5 to 7 to disbelieve them. The High Court
wrongly refused to believe the eye witnesses on the
ground that they attempted to implicate as many persons
as possible by making omnibus allegations. The High
Court further erred in holding that PW-1, 6 and 7, who
were the eye witnesses travelling in the jeep with the
deceased, were not speaking the truth as they were close
relatives and supporters of Deceased No. 1. The rejection
of the evidence of PW-2, 3 and 5 by the High Court on the
ground that they did not attribute specific overt acts to
each accused is also erroneous.
Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 10 October, 2002
12. Undoubtedly, a horrendous crime was committed in a
village in which four persons lost their lives. There is no
3 See Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, ¶ 15
4 See State of U.P. v. Dan Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 747 ¶32
20
dispute that the deceased and the accused belonged to
opposite factions. There is also no doubt about the situs of
the crime. A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24 and A-43 to A-47 were
acquitted by the Trial Court. There is no appeal against
their acquittal. The question that remains for our
consideration is whether there is evidence on record to
convict the other accused.