iminal Appeal No404 of 1979
From the Judgment and order dated 19479 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No843 of 1976
AN Mulla ND Garg and TL Garg for the Appellants
Ms Amita Kohli and RS Suri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated April 19 1979 passed in Criminal Appeal No 843 of 1976
The appellants herein are five in number
They along with four others were sent up for trial before the Court of Session Faridkot on various charges as detailed in the judgment under appeal
Those four co accused of the appel lants were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and the matter seems to have rested there because apparently the State of Punjab did not rake up the issue against those four accused
On the basis thereof the principle plea of the appellants through their counsel herein is that when four accused have been acquitted the prosecution story itself has lost credence entitling the appellants to acquittal
It is this plea which has engaged our attention
579 The parties belong to village Talwandi Bhagerian Distt
Faridkot Punjab
Thereat was a vacant plot belonging to Karnek Singh Jagatjit Singh and Wasakha Singh sons of Partap Singh who were living abroadAdjoining thereto was the outer house of Balwant Singh PW15
According to the prosecution Balwant Smgh PW15 had put up a boundary wall around it as also a structure thereon storing wheat chaff therein besides putting cotton sticks and dung manure in the unbuilt space
Mohinder Singh son of the said Balwant Singh PW15 moved the Civil Court through a suit on Decem ber 10 1975 seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining his co villager Jiwan Singh his sons Naib Singh appellaht herein and Mohinder Singh an acquitted co accused as also the minor sons of the aforesaid two accused from interfering in his possession over the suit land
The Court on December 10 1975 granted interim injunction restraining the impleaded defendants from interfering with the posses sion of the plaintiff over the disputed plot
Later on the request of the defendants the Civil Court on 29 1 1976 identified the suit property being in Khasra No345 346 and 356 and out of the same vide Order exhibit
D 16 vacated the temporary injunction in respect of Khasra No 345 and 346 confirming the same in respect of Khasra No356
Besides there had been security proceedings between Mohinder Singh aforesaid and his brother Ginder Singh one of the victims on the one hand and Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh acquitted co accused and some others on the other
However both parties were ultimately discharged by the Court
The occurrence took place in that integral on 16 12 1975 when the temporary injunction was in force
The complainant party except for PWs 18 and 19 are members of one family
This relationship is disclosed in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also by the High Court
We would not burden this judgment with details thereof
The fact remains that on the night intervening 15th and 16th Decem ber 1975 Jugraj Singh PW14 Balwant Singh PW15 Ginder Singh since deceased and Assa Singh had slept in a room in their outer house and where they were keeping their cattle also
At about 800 am on December 16 1975 all the inmates of the outer house and others having joined them having come from their residential house at that  time were busy doing their assigned chores
At that juncture the five appellants namely Hoshiar Singh armed with SBBL gun Jalaur Singh armed with a 12 bore DBBL gun ExMO5 Sardara Singh armed with a gandasa ExMO2 Ram Singh alias Ram Charan Singh armed with SBBL gun exhibit
MO6 and Naib Singh son of Jiwan Singh armed with a DBBL gun exhibit
MO7 entered the house accompanied by five other men
They were the four acquitted co accused namely Thamman Singh unarmed Darshan Singh armed with a gandasa 580 Mohinder Singh son of Jiwan Singh brother of Naib Singh appellant armed with a spear Nirmal Singh armed with a rifle and Major Singh the fifth man armed with a DBBL gun who was lately injured during the occurrence
Thamman Singh acquitted co accused raised an exhortation challenging Ginder Singh that he would not be spared
Tham man Singh then caught hold of the long hair of Ginder Singh and thereupon Nirmal Singh acquitted co accused fired a shot with his rifle hitting Ginder Singh on his left flank
On Ginder Singh falling down by the side of the manger Sardara Singh appellant gave two successive gandasa blows on the head of Ginder Singh deceased while he was in the process of failing down
This was the first casualty
It was followed by Naib Singh appellant firing at Balwant Singh PW15 hitting him in the abdomen reflective of at tempt to murder
Dhanna Singh alias Shinghara Singh a member of the complainant s family also happened to reach the scene of the occurrence having come from the residential house and while in the door way was fired at by Jalaur Singh appellant with his gun followed by a gun shot by Ram Singh alias Ram Charan Singh appellant hitting Dhanna Singh
This was the second casualty
Sukhminder Singh PW16 also reached there and was fired at by Hoshiar Singh appellant hitting him on the left arm and blank where upon he fell down
This was the second case reflecting attempt to murder
The female folk Bhagwan Kaur PW17 and Raj Kaur present at the place of occurrence while raising alarm laid themselves over Ginder Singh and Sukhvinder Singh respectively
Darshan Singh acquitted co accused gave blows from the reverse side of his gandasa to Bhagwan Kaur PW17 and Mohinder Singh co accused to Raj Kaur with the blunt side of his spear
Apart from the members of the family involved Sukhdev Singh PW18 Pritam Singh PW19 neighbours had occasion to see the occurrence while standing in their respective houses
On the side of the accused party so claimed the prosecution a Barchhaspear blow of Mohinder Singh meant to hit Raj Kaur accidently hit the abdomen of Naib Singh appellant
Like wise a shot fired by Jalaur Singh appellant accidently caused injury to Major Singh the co culprit but that injury later proved fatal
The accused persons took away not only their weapons but a licensed rifle of Ginder Singh and revolver of Mohinder Singh son of Balwant Singh PW15 from inside the room baithak while going away
This is the whole prosecution case with regard to the motive and the actual occurrence
To complete the picture the deceased persons were taken to the Civil Hospital Moga wherefrom Dr
AC Gupta PWI sent intimation to Police Station Moga Sadar
Avtar Singh ASI
PW20 reached the spot and recorded the statement of Jugraj Singh PW14 at 1100 am within three 581 hours of the occurrence formal FIR of which was recorded at the Police Station at 1115 am
In that statement vivid details of the occurrence are given
The injured persons were examined and given medical aid
The bodies of the deceased persons were subjected to post mortem
The accused were arrested and weapons were recovered either from them or at their instance on statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The accused at the trial pleaded denial to the occurrence but Naib Singh appellant gave written state ment exhibit
D 6 as his counter version
The trial resulted in the acquittal of four persons but so far as the appellants were concerned all of them were held guilty and convicted under Sections 148 449 IPC awarding them various terms of sentences
Substantively Sardara Singh appellant was con victed under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of Ginder Singh by giving him two fatal gandasa blows
The remaining appellants were convicted constructively under Sections 302149 IPC
All of them were given life sentence
Jalaur Singh and Ram Singh appellants were substantively convicted under Section 302149 IPC for causing the death of Dhanna Singh and the remaining appellants under Sections 302149 IPC and all were awarded life sentence
Naib Singh appellant was substantively convicted under Section 307 IPC for murderously attacking Balwant Singh PW15 as also Hoshiar Singh appellant under Section 307 IPC for murderous ly attacking Sukhminder Singh PW16
The remaining four appellants in each case were convicted constructively under both counts under Sections 307149 IPC and awarded various terms of imprisonment
All the sentences imposed were or dered to run concurrently
Appropriate orders of disposal with respect to the weapons recovered were passed by the learned Sessions Judge
As indicated above the main plea of the appellants is that four accused having been acquitted despite the eye witnesses deposing to their participation no credence should be given to the prosecution witnesses in order to maintain the convictions
The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has been pressed into service
It appears that the argument as such was not raised before the High Court
Rather it appears that the High Court s attention was not invited to the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the four co accused
It would be apt therefore to scrutinize that reasoning and see whether the prosecution case has lost credibility on such reasoning
Thamman Singh acquitted accused was empty handed
The role attributed to him is that he gave an exhortation chal lenging Ginder Singh deceased to be ready and that he would not be spared
He then caught hold of the long hair of Ginder Singh
Thereafter Ginder Singh was as 582 saulted
At the end of the occurrence he is blamed of having taken away the licensed rifle of Ginder Singh
The learned Sessions Judge tended to go in generalities in terming that the evidence of exhortation in the very nature of things is a weak piece of evidence and there was quite often a tendency to implicate some person besides the actual assailant
For this he took the cue from a reported decision of this Court in Jainul Haque vs State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 45 as well as a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to that effect in support
Then without coming to the specifics the learned Sessions Judge abruptly came to the conclusion that when Thamman Singh acquitted co accused had come to the spot empty handed the exhortation appears to have been introduced in the prosecution case and that the witnesses apparently were out to rope him in
The two roles attributed to him namely of catching the long hair of Ginder Singh and to have carried away the rifle of Ginder Singh went in the same sweep to hold that this was part of the over doing
The fact that the rifle was being carried by Thamman Singh at the time of his arrest was considered by the learned Sessions Judge to be abnormal as otherwise in the normal course of events it was expected to have been kept concealed somewhere
His finding thus in his own words is the fact remains that I have not been satisfied about the criminality of Thamman Singh The only comment worth making is that exhortation is necessarily not a padding or over doing and has to be viewed in the correct perspective in the facts and circumstances of each case
In the instant case besides the exhortation there were other factors available enumerated herein which could lead the learned Sessions Judge to take the view that he has and that was a possible view which any cautious Judge could have taken
But that per se does not mean that the witnesses which had deposed to the participation of the accused at the time of occurrence have to be dubbed as liars
With regard to Darshan Singh acquitted accused the role assigned to him is that he gave gandasa blows to Bhagwan Kaur PW17 from the reverse side and that he took away the licensed revolver of Mohinder Singh from the room baithak of the outer house
The learned Sessions Judge opined that though the eye witnesses account was that Bhagwan Kaur had received injuries from the reverse side of the gandasa from Darshan Singh still in the First Information Report given by Jugraj Singh PW14 the use of the weapon was mentioned but not of the manner in which it was used
The learned Sessions Judge took the view that it was normally expected of Darshan Singh to have given at least one gandasa blow to someone from the sharp side as well
Besides his taking away the revolver from Mohinder Singh after the occurrence did not inspire confidence like the case of Thamman Singh
Besides if these two weapons namely the rifle and the 583 revolver were available with the complainant party when the occurrence started it was expected of them to have used those which had not appeared to have been used
In that light the act of removing the revolver was viewed with suspicion more so when its recovery was made as a result of the disclosure statement after a span of eight days from the date of arrest of Darshan Singh
The learned Sessions Judge then concluded with these words The case against Darshan Singh accused does not again stand beyond reasona ble doubt
Now such a view of the learned Sessions Judge was a possible view taken on a cautious approach without telling on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses
So far as Mohinder Singh acquitted accused is concerned he is said to have used a spear blunt wise on Raj Kaur
Raj Kaur was not found to have any stab or punctured wound
Further the spear was recovered after seven days of the arrest of Mohinder Singh and that recovery was viewed with suspicion due to the time lag
The version in FIR was pressed into service about the omission of the specific manner in which the weapon had been used
The learned Ses sions Judge then held I would accordingly give the benefit of doubt to Mohinder Singh accused and acquit him This finding could be given by the learned Sessions Judge without causing the least dent to the prosecution case
Shifting the grain from the chaff does not mean loss of grain and gain of chaff
Such a view of the learned Judge cannot caste a reflection on the case as a whole
Lastly Nirmal Singh acquitted accused was described in the FIR to be armed with a pakki banduq which descrip tion the learned Sessions Judge translates as rifle
Since Nirmal Singh is accused to have begun the occurrence by firing at Ginder Singh and Ginder Singh had pellets seen in his dead body such description of the weapon sowed the seeds of suspicion in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge
It was at best either a case of a mistaken perception or flash impression that Nirmal Singh undisputably being a licensee of a rifle had that rifle
Finding the description of the weapon being in discord with medical evidence the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case not proved against Nirmal Singh acquitted accused
Here even though the learned Judge did not extend the benefit of doubt to Nirmal Singh in so many words his approach is an exercise in that direction
The acquittal of Nirmal Singh too would cause no affectation to the prosecution case as a whole
For the views afore expressed and the totality of the circumstances we do not think that in the instant case the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is attracted
The large number of participants in the occurrence would at some place or the other leave a place for entertaining some 584 doubt
But here the prosecution case as a whole remains strong supported as it is by the independent evidence of PWs 18 and 19 the neighbours and the occurrence having taken place in the house of the complainant party
It was next contended that the prosecution has cocealed its own guilty part and has not explained the way the in juries were caused to Major Singh Deceased and to Naib Singh appellant
The argument  is barely to be noticed and reject ed
Significantly Jugraj Singh in the First information Report specifically mentioned that the injuries to Major Singh deceased and Naib Singh appellant were as a result of the doings of accused persons themselves and in the circum stances narrated above all the eye witnesses have cogently and consistently deposed to that effect
The findings of both the courts below are that the occurrence took place in the courtyard of the outer house of the complainant party
Blood stained earth was collected from four places therein during investigation
Time of the occurrence being 800 am and the inmates of the house being busy with their daily chores leaves one to pose the question as to why should the complainant party anticipate an assault and be ready with fire arms to put them to use
It does not stand to reason that the complainant party having licensed weapons if anticipating an assault to hhave not kept the same ready for use
The fact that these licensed weapons of the com plainant party are not shown to have been used by itself goes a long way to establish that the injuries received by Major Singh deceased and Naib Singh appellant were acciden tal and suffered in the manner as suggested by the prosecu tion
On this score also we remain unconvinced of the argu ment
Having examined the prosecution case as finally estab lished at the level of the High Court and having seen the reasoning of the Court of Session in acquitting the four accused and also for the reasons set out above we go to hold the appeal to be devoid of merit and accordingly dis miss the same
The appellants are on bail
They are required to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith 
RP Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellants who belonged to the Reddi caste in an area of Andhra Pradesh which originally formed part of the Madras Presidency filed their respective declarations under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973
Appellant No 2 in his declaration claimed an increase in the ceiling unit permitted to be held by him on the ground that appellant No 1 as his illatom son in law who had attained the age of majority had a share in the proper ties
In the inquiry held Appellant No 2 deposed that appel lant No 1 was entitled to a half share in his properties as his illatom son in law
Both the appellants claimed that appellant No 1 was entitled to a share under an agreement
The Land Reforms Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the declarant appellant No 2 held surplus holding and directed him to surrender the excess land
Appellant No 1 was declared as not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit
The appellants preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate 514 515 Tribunal which was dismissed
The appellants filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court which was also dismissed
This appeal by special leave is one of the appeals directed against the common judgment of the High Court
The appellants contended that appellant No 1 as an illatom sonin law of appellant No 2 was entitled to a half share in the property of appellant No 2 that an illatom son in law who had attained the age of majority was in the same position as a major son and hence the ceiling area permitted to appellant No 2 was liable to be increased by one ceiling unit as appellant No 1 did not hold any land independently nor in any manner specified under Section 4A of the Ceiling Act
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
The institution of illatom adoption that is affiliating a son in law and giving him a share is purely a creature of custom and judicial recognition has been given to it
It prevails among the Reddi and Kamma castes in territories which earlier formed part of the then Madras Presidency
518 G 517 F 2
An illatom son in law becomes entitled to a share in the property of his father in law as his heir that is on his death
521 C 3
Although an illatom son in law has some rights simi lar to those of a natural son born after the adoption of the illatom son in law his rights are not identical to those of conferred by law on a son or an adopted son
The illatom son in law does not succeed to the properties of his father in law by survivorship but only on account of custom or an agreement giving him a share in the property of his father in law
His position is not identical to that of an adopted son because he does not lose his rights in his  natural family on being taken as an illatom son in law and continues to be entitled to a share in the property of his natural father
It is not possible to equate an illatom son in law who has attained majority with a major son for the purposes of Section 4A of the Ceiling Act
520 F G 521 E 516 4
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act whereby Section 4A was inserted into the Ceiling Act indicate that an illatom son in law who does not lose his fights in his own family cannot be regarded as a major son of his father in law for the purposes of the Ceiling Act
If he was so regarded there would be a double benefit because of his presence as the ceiling area of his father in law would be increased as well as the ceiling area of his natu ral father
That Certainly could not have been the intention behind the amendment
Since there is no custom of having an illatom among Muslims and Christians such a construction would lead to disparity between the position of Muslims and Christians on the one hand and Hindus on the other
That would be contrary to the very purpose for which the amend ment was made
522A C Nallun Kristnamma and another vs Kamepalli Venkatasub bayya and others 1918 19 LR 46 IA 168 Hanumantamma vs Rami Reddi 1882 LR4 IA Madras Series 272 Nara sayya and others vs Ramachandrayya and others AIR 1956 43 AP 209 Penumatsa Koti Ramachandra Raju vs State of AP 1980 1 HC Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 307 referred to
Peech Ramaiah vs Government of Andhra Pradesh 1976 2 HC Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 278 distinguished
Mayne Hindu Law and Usages 13th Edition Chapter VII Paragraph 242 NR Raghavachariar Hindu Law 8th Edition Paragraph 176 Mulla Hindu Law 16th Edition Para  referred to