SHEESH RAM & Ors. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

all the accused left the place. The trial court found all the · accused guilty and convicted them under Sections 148, 302 r/w Section 149 and Section 307 r/w section 149 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted four accused of all the offences. The High Court further acquitted appellant- D SR of offence Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 307 r/w section 149 IPC; acquitted appellant-RM of the charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149, IPC and instead, convicted him under· E Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC; and acquitted Appellant-R of charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and instead, convicted him under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The instant F appeal was filed against the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The deceased was most brutally murdered. According to the doctor PW-12, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to head injury leading to injury to brain and injury to carotid artery in neck. PW-5 was also brutally attacked. He received four incised wounds. He suffered a fracture of left parietal bone. Being an injured witness, he was the most important witness SHEESH RAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 157 B in the case. He described the incident in question. The A defence could not find any dent in his evidence. In fact, in the cross-examination, he gave more details about the incident in question, which were consistent with what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. He stated that Accused-B was armed with an axe, appellant-R with an axe, appellant-SR with a sword, appellant-RM with a dhariya and others were having lathis. They encircled PW- 5, his father and brothers. His father and brother ran towards the village. Accused-R caught hold of his deceased-brother and dealt an axe blow on his head. The c deceased fell down. Appellant-SR dealt an axe blow on - the deceased when he had fallen down. Accused-RM dealt a blow with a dhariya on the right hand of the deceased. According to PW-5, thereafter, appellant-SR caught hold of him and appellant-RM hit on his left temple 0 with a dhariya. Appellant-SR dealt an axe blow behind his ear. Accused-H dealt a lathi blow on his face. Thereafter, he became unconscious. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 had corroborated this witness. Even assuming that these witnesses were related to each other and, therefore, -interested witnesses, it is well settled that the evidence of interested witnesses is not always suspect. It has to be scrutinized with caution and can be accepted if it is found reliable. [Paras 6, 7] [163-C-H; 164-A-D] E

2. The presence of PW-5 at the scene of offence F cannot be disputed since he was an injured witness. His evidence strengthened the prosecution case. The evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 5 also inspired confidence. So far as the acquitted accused were concerned, the evidence of these witnesses qua them was found to be G exaggerated. But, on account of that, their entire evidence cannot be discarded. All these witnesses stated that the acquitted accused had lathis and they dealt lathi blows on PW-5. This part of their evidence was disbelieved. It is true that these witnesses have improved H 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A the prosecution story to some extent. But, that improvement or that exaggerated version can be safely separated from the main case of the prosecution. So far as the main prosecution case was concerned, all the witnesses were consistent. This is not a case where truth B and falsehood are inextricably mixed up. Witnesses tend to exaggerate the prosecution story. If the exaggeration does not change the prosecution story or convert it into an altogether new story, allowance can be made for it. If evidence of a witness is to be disbelieved merely C because he has made some improvement in his evidence, there would hardly be any witness on whom reliance can be placed by the courts. It is trite that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. It is merely a rule of caution. It does o not have the status of rule of law. In *Balaka Singh case, this Court has said that where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because the grain and the chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation, an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by E divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and background against which they are made, the Court cannot make an attempt to separate truth from falsehood. But, this is not a case where the grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up. The evidence of eye-witnesses was not discrepant on the F material aspect of the prosecution case. Reliance can, therefore, be placed on them. [para 7] [164-D-H; 165-A-C]

3. The appellants examined the defence witnesses. Testimony of defence witnesses was not believed by the G trial court as well as the High Court. There is no reason to take a contrary view. The complainant and some of the witnesses were facing trial for murder of the brother of the appellants. There was, therefore, strong motive to kill the deceased. The evidence of eye-witnesses, particularly H the evidence of PW-5, the injured eye-w!tness, was SHEESH RAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 159 trustworthy. Therefore, the argument that on account of A previous enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case is rejected. The impugned judgment is not interfered with taking an overall view of the matter and examined in light of *Balaka Singh and **Rizan. [para 8] [166-8-E] B