Case: POSTMAN VENGAISAMY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS

the evidence of such witnesses, their statements cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in Ram Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 12 SCC 389 to contend that the statements of Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) cannot be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining conviction of others when all accused stand on the same footing and deserve parity. Learned counsel also relied on Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Ors, (2017) 3 SCC 261 to submit that the prosecution has failed to prove common object to commit a murder on the basis of evidence led, therefore, conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 149 is not tenable. Reliance is also placed upon in the case of Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 5 SCC 67. In the said case, it was held that though the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India but the rule of caution is required to be applied while examining the statement of witnesses whose part statement is not found to be truthful. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. 9. Irulandi (PW-1) has deposed that, on April 26, 2003, he along with his father Chinnaperiaiyah and Ramar (PW-2) were on their way to Anaikulam, when they were surrounded by accused persons who were led by Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) and armed with swords. Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) exhorted other accused to cut the deceased in pieces as planned. It is thereafter, Vengaisami (A-l) chopped up right elbow of his father but he was immobilised by Karnan (A-2), Krishnamurthi (A-3) and Thirumeni (A-4) whereas Lingam (A-5), Poovalingam (A-6), Kesavan (A-7) and Ramalingam (A-8) immobilised Ramar (PW-2). Rathinettamatiyan (A-9) chopped the right hand wrist of his father by sword, Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-10) chopped the right side forehead of his father, Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) hit left side rib of his father, whereas Neelamegavannan (A-12) hit in the right side of the back side of his father. Chinnaperiaiyah died at the spot. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) escaped from the clutches of the accused, then Arjunan (A-13) chopped the left hand below elbow of Irulandi (PW-1) whereas Poovalingam (A-6) hit left shoulder of Ramar (PW-2). Though, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) are introduced witnesses but the lengthy cross-examination conducted on them does not lead to any such inference. Dr. Jayakumar (PW-13) has examined Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) on April 26, 2003, the same day when Chinnaperiyayya lost his life. Chinnaperiyayya, whose postmortem report is Ex.P-28, shows that multiple injuries were noticed by the Doctor. Such injuries corroborate the oral testimony of Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). Ex.P-29 is the report in respect of injuries suffered by Irulandi (PW-1) measuring 6xlx1/2 cm near left hand. He has also provided medical report (Ex.P-30) on Ramar. He stated that Ramar has sustained the following injuries: 1. Wound on the left bullocks. The pain was stated by patient swelling on the right fact. Pain felt not welling to get treated as influent treated as out patient. 2. At the right ankle pray was taken and found that right Kibula Bone was broken the said injury was termed as severe injury. Certificate issued the same is accident report Ex.P.30. 10. Baskaran (PW-4), in his statement, also confirmed the incident of April 8, 2003. He stated that he, along with Chinnaperiaiyah, were beaten up by the accused. He further stated that he sustained injuries on the face below both the eyes. The statement of Rathi(PW-5), wife of Baskaran (PW-4), is also to the same effect. 11. The oral testimony of material witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased is made out from the incident which happened on April 8, 2003. Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below are plausible findings in law. 12. In Ram Laxmans case, the Court found that the High Court disbelieved with witness in respect of the other accused but believed such witness in respect of the other accused. That is not a case of some omissions or contradictions of statement but the credibility of witness itself was doubted. Such is not in the present case. Some contradictions arise on account of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But the creditability of the witnesses has not been shaken. Therefore, such witnesses are reliable and credit worthy witnesses. 13. In Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh case, this Court was examining the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court when the High Court maintained sentence against only one accused. The appeal by the complainant was against the acquittal of the accused. This Court held that armed with weapons like axe, iron pipe and spear, the common object to commit an offence can be inferred from the weapons used and the violent manner of the attack but the question examined was whether they can be attributed with the knowledge about murder. The present is not such a case. Here,on the exhortation of Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll), the accused who were armed with sword had raised murdered assault on the deceased and also injured Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased on April 8, 2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take life of Chinnaperiaiyah. The judgments referred to are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is cumulative effect of the evidence led by the prosecution which determines whether unlawful assembly had a common object to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder. 14. In Mahendrans case, reiterating the well-established principle that follows falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and is not a rule of law. Therefore, even if some part of the statement is found to be unproved, entire testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal.9. Irulandi (PW-1) has deposed that, on April 26, 2003, he along with his father Chinnaperiaiyah and Ramar (PW-2) were on their way to Anaikulam, when they were surrounded by accused persons who were led by Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) and armed with swords. Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) exhorted other accused to cut the deceased in pieces as planned. It is thereafter, Vengaisami (A-l) chopped up right elbow of his father but he was immobilised by Karnan (A-2), Krishnamurthi (A-3) and Thirumeni (A-4) whereas Lingam (A-5), Poovalingam (A-6), Kesavan (A-7) and Ramalingam (A-8) immobilised Ramar (PW-2). Rathinettamatiyan (A-9) chopped the right hand wrist of his father by sword, Kotti @ Kotteswaran (A-10) chopped the right side forehead of his father, Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll) hit left side rib of his father, whereas Neelamegavannan (A-12) hit in the right side of the back side of his father.Chinnaperiaiyah died at the spot. Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) escaped from the clutches of the accused, then Arjunan (A-13) chopped the left hand below elbow of Irulandi (PW-1) whereas Poovalingam (A-6) hit left shoulder of Ramar (PW-2). Though, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) are introduced witnesses but the lengthy cross-examination conducted on them does not lead to any such inference. Dr. Jayakumar (PW-13) has examined Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) on April 26, 2003, the same day when Chinnaperiyayya lost his life. Chinnaperiyayya, whose postmortem report is Ex.P-28, shows that multiple injuries were noticed by the Doctor. Such injuries corroborate the oral testimony of Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). Ex.P-29 is the report in respect of injuries suffered by Irulandi (PW-1) measuring 6xlx1/2 cm near left hand.11. The oral testimony of material witnesses Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2) is corroborated by the medical evidence, whereas the motive of taking life of the deceased is made out from the incident which happened on April 8, 2003. Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below are plausible findings in law.12. In Ram Laxmans case, the Court found that the High Court disbelieved with witness in respect of the other accused but believed such witness in respect of the other accused. That is not a case of some omissions or contradictions of statement but the credibility of witness itself was doubted. Such is not in the present case. Some contradictions arise on account of perception of the witnesses and due to passage of time. But the creditability of the witnesses has not been shaken. Therefore, such witnesses are reliable and credit worthy witnesses.13. In Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh case, this Court was examining the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court when the High Court maintained sentence against only one accused. The appeal by the complainant was against the acquittal of the accused. This Court held that armed with weapons like axe, iron pipe and spear, the common object to commit an offence can be inferred from the weapons used and the violent manner of the attack but the question examined was whether they can be attributed with the knowledge about murder. The present is not such a case. Here,on the exhortation of Thalaiyaripandi (A-ll), the accused who were armed with sword had raised murdered assault on the deceased and also injured Irulandi (PW-1) and Ramar (PW-2). Since there is a history of earlier attack on the deceased on April 8, 2003, accused formed an unlawful assembly with a view to take life of Chinnaperiaiyah. The judgments referred to are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is cumulative effect of the evidence led by the prosecution which determines whether unlawful assembly had a common object to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.14. In Mahendrans case, reiterating the well-established principle that follows falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and is not a rule of law. Therefore, even if some part of the statement is found to be unproved, entire testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected.