# RANBIR AND ORS v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 102
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 1964
- **Bench:** K. K. M~Thew, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ranbir-and-ors-v-state-of-punjab-6631
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

E~·idence-Appraisal in cases of party factions.
The appellants were convicted under Ss. 148 and 325/149 I.P.C. Dismiss·
ing the appeal to this Court by special leave,
HELD : ( ( 1) In cases of party factions, there is generally speaking a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons along with the guilty ones, but normally where the general substratum
of the occurrence cannot be held to arouse any reasonable doubt or suspicion
about its having taken place, then the prosecution witnesses, provided they are
held to have witnessed the occurrence and to be in a position to identify
the
assailants, are not ordinarily to be assumed to have left out the actual offenders
or the guilty persons.
Although the witnesses for the prosecution are, in such
circumstances, prone to exaggerate the culpability of the actual assailants as
also to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent
members of the opposite party as well, the court has to sift the evidence and
after a close scrutiny '.Vith anxious care and caution to try to come to a Judicial
conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be safely considered to have
taken part in the assault. [105E·G]
(2) The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply
in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the court in
cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence
in
regard to certain particulars to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and
caution.
If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the
prosecution case remains intact then the court should uphold the prosecution
case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy.
[1050-H; 106A]
Deep Chand v. State of Haryana, [1959] 3 S.C.C. 890, followed.
( 3) The question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is
material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the
investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely
support the prosecution case.
It is, therefore, essential that the Investigating
Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons therefor.
[106 B·CJ
A
B
c
D
E
( 4) This Court does not, normally speaking, undertake the appra~al of
F
evidence in an appeal under Ar. 136 of the Constitution. [107B-C]
CRIMU.rAL AppELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 5 of
1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July
22, 1 %6 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 836 of 1964.
G
N. N. Goswamy and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant&.
H. S. M{l!Wah and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the <;:ourt was delivered by
DuA, J.-In this appeal by special leave, five appellants have challenged their convictio~ under ss. 148 and 325/149, I.P.C. ai;id
se~-
H
tence of rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count ~1th ~ddi
tional fine of Rs. 200/- each under ss. 325/149, I.P.C. and m derault
of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, up-
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
RANBIR v. PUNJAB (Dua, J.)
103
held by alearned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
on appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge,
Ferozepur.
Originally,. 13 persons including the five appellants were tried by
the Sessions Judge, Ferozepllf under ss. 148, 307/149 and 364, l.P.C.
According to the broad features of the prosecution story, on August 11,
1963, Dharamvir P.W.9 started from his village Ramsara for his land
in the area of Azamgarh some time between 7 and 8.00 a.m.
He was
driving a bullock cart and with him were his wife Nathi, P.W.5, his
brother's wife Ankori, P.W.6, and a small girl Guddi as
also one
Chandu, in the said cart.
Walking behind the cart was his brother
Jaidcv, P.W.4.
When they had covered a distance of about H mile~
from _the village Ramsara and were near t.he land of Ranbir appellant,
three jeeps overtook th.eir cart from behind.

## Text

102
RANBIR AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
April 26, 1973
[K. K. M~THEW AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
E~·idence-Appraisal in cases of party factions.
The appellants were convicted under Ss. 148 and 325/149 I.P.C. Dismiss·
ing the appeal to this Court by special leave,
HELD : ( ( 1) In cases of party factions, there is generally speaking a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons along with the guilty ones, but normally where the general substratum
of the occurrence cannot be held to arouse any reasonable doubt or suspicion
about its having taken place, then the prosecution witnesses, provided they are
held to have witnessed the occurrence and to be in a position to identify
the
assailants, are not ordinarily to be assumed to have left out the actual offenders
or the guilty persons.
Although the witnesses for the prosecution are, in such
circumstances, prone to exaggerate the culpability of the actual assailants as
also to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent
members of the opposite party as well, the court has to sift the evidence and
after a close scrutiny '.Vith anxious care and caution to try to come to a Judicial
conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be safely considered to have
taken part in the assault. [105E·G]
(2) The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply
in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the court in
cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence
in
regard to certain particulars to scrutinise the rest of his evidence with care and
caution.
If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the
prosecution case remains intact then the court should uphold the prosecution
case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy.
[1050-H; 106A]
Deep Chand v. State of Haryana, [1959] 3 S.C.C. 890, followed.
( 3) The question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is
material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the
investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely
support the prosecution case.
It is, therefore, essential that the Investigating
Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons therefor.
[106 B·CJ
A
B
c
D
E
( 4) This Court does not, normally speaking, undertake the appra~al of
F
evidence in an appeal under Ar. 136 of the Constitution. [107B-C]
CRIMU.rAL AppELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 5 of
1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July
22, 1 %6 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 836 of 1964.
G
N. N. Goswamy and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant&.
H. S. M{l!Wah and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the <;:ourt was delivered by
DuA, J.-In this appeal by special leave, five appellants have challenged their convictio~ under ss. 148 and 325/149, I.P.C. ai;id
se~-
H
tence of rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count ~1th ~ddi
tional fine of Rs. 200/- each under ss. 325/149, I.P.C. and m derault
of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, up-
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
RANBIR v. PUNJAB (Dua, J.)
103
held by alearned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
on appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge,
Ferozepur.
Originally,. 13 persons including the five appellants were tried by
the Sessions Judge, Ferozepllf under ss. 148, 307/149 and 364, l.P.C.
According to the broad features of the prosecution story, on August 11,
1963, Dharamvir P.W.9 started from his village Ramsara for his land
in the area of Azamgarh some time between 7 and 8.00 a.m.
He was
driving a bullock cart and with him were his wife Nathi, P.W.5, his
brother's wife Ankori, P.W.6, and a small girl Guddi as
also one
Chandu, in the said cart.
Walking behind the cart was his brother
Jaidcv, P.W.4.
When they had covered a distance of about H mile~
from _the village Ramsara and were near t.he land of Ranbir appellant,
three jeeps overtook th.eir cart from behind.
One jeep stood in front
of the cart and obstructed its passage : another jeep stood by the side
of the cart towards the east and the third one was behind it.
All the
13 accused persons armed with various weapons emerged. from the.
three jeeps.
We are not concerned with the other accused persons
who are not before us.
Ranbir appellant was stated to be carrying a
spiked dang known as sela.
Laxmi appellant was statw tq be aaned
with a kulhari. Hanuman appellant was armed with a !illn and the
remaining appellants with lathis.
Some of the accused peJiS. ans. pulled
down Dharamvir from the cart.
All of them started belabouring him
with their respective weapons.
Jaidev, brother of Dltaramvir, intervened in order to save his brother, but he was also b)!iaboured by ·
Ranbir and Laxmi appellants along with another accused person, with
their respective weapons.
Shrimati Ankori, wife of Jaidev and Shrimati Nathi, wife of Dharamvir, who tried to protect their respective
husbands against further injuries, were also belabbured by some .of the
accused persons. Tota Ram P.W.7 and Hardwari P.W.8 of Ramsara
village also witnessed the occurrence.
After causing injuries both to
Dharamvir and J aidev, the accused persons are stated to have lifted
them both and put into one of the jeeps which was driven away towards
the east. In the field of Ranbir, Jaswant appellant is stated to have
wrapped a gunny bag round the knees of Dharamvir and Laxml
appellant to have placed a five seer iron weight under the knee. Ranbk
appellant and Sahi Ram accused are then stated to have struck haiiJ:-
mer blows on Dharamvir's knee.
Thereafter, Jaidev was removed to
a distance of about 20 karams from his brother Dharamvir and given
similar injuries on his knee by Ranbir, Jaswant, Laxmi appellant and
Sahi Ram accused.
After causing them these injuries, Dharamvir and
Jaidev were again put in one jeep with the object of cutting them into
pieces and throwing them in the pucca canal.
The three jeeps · are
then stated to have been driven away towards Abohar. It is said that
the pucca canal lay ahead of Abohar towards Fazilka.
On the way
when the jeeps reach a katcha canal at a distance of about 1 t mites from
Abohar towards Ramsara, one of the jeeps returned to Ramsara,
whereas the remainin~ two jeeps went ahead towards Abohar. When
the jeeps containing Dharamvir and Jaidev reached near the · police
station Abohar, the two injured persons raised alarm.
The occupants
of the jeep thereupon dropped Dharamvir and Jaidev on the road side
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] l S.C.R.
at a short distance from the police station and themselves drove back.
Within a few minutes, A.S.I., Bhagat Singh and some other police men
arrived from the police station. A.S.I., Bhagat Singh, recorded Jaidev's statement which was sent to the police station and· on the basis of
that statement F.I.R. Exh. P.0./2 was recorded. Jaidev and Dharamvir were removed to the civil hospital, Abohar.
A short while thereafter, Smt. Ankori and Smt. Nathi along with Guddi also reached the
Civil Hospital, Abohar.
The doctor in charge was, however, not
available but the compounder gave first aid to the four injured persons,
who were then taken to Fazilka Hospital where Dr. Parkash Kaur of
the Civil Hospital advised Dharamvir's immediate removal to the Civil
Hospital, Ferozepur.
Smt. Ankori, Smt. Nathi and Jaidev stayed on
in the Civil Hospital, Fazilka, but Dharamvir was
removed
to
Ferozepur.
The Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence Jed in the case and
aficr examining all th~ relevant circumstances noticed the non-inclu- /
sion of the name of Moman accused in the F.I.R. and concluded tha> it
was doubtful if Jaidev had merely forgotten to mention his name at
that stage because, (i) Tota Ram P.W.7 had also not supported the
prosecution version with respect to Moman's participation, (ii) Hardwari Lal P.W.8, Smt. Nathi P.W. 5 and Smt. Ankori P.W.6 had also
failed to identify Moman as one of the culprits, and (iii) Jaidev P.W.4
;ind Dharamvir, P. W.9 had also not ascribed any particular injury to
this accused.
Moman was accordingly given benefit of doubt and
acquitted of all the charges. The remaining 12 accused persons were,
however, held guilty of the offences charged an<! convicted as already
noticed.
On appeal the Punjab High Court went into the relevant facts to
which the attention of the learned Single Judge hearing the appeal was
invited. It was argued in the High Court that the testimony of the eye
witnesses was not worthy of acceptance because of the admitted enmity
between the parties and of the various discrepancies in their depositions. It was contended that in view of the highly strained relations
iietween the parties there was a danger of false implication and if the
Court could not separate truth from falsehood, all the appellants were
entitled to the benefit of doubt and to be acquitted.
The learned Judge
then went into the evidence and came to the conclusion that the testimony of the eye witness was consistent with regard to the participation
of Ranbir, Hanuman, Jaswant and Laxmi appellants in the occurrence
in question and excepting Hardwari P.W. 8, all the eye witnesses had
deposed to the participation of Hari Ram appellant as well.
In spite
of the fact that all the eye witnesses had supported the prosecution
allegation that the five appellants were accompanied by 8 other persons, Hardwari P.W.8, Smt. Nathi, P.W.5 and Smt. Ankori P.W.6
were not in a position to swear if the other accused persons who had
appealed to the High Court were the associates of the aforementioned
five accused persons.
In face of this state of the evidence when
admittedly there was considerable bad blood between the two parties,
the High Court considered it extremely unsafe to hold anyone other
than the five app~llants to be guilty of participation in the assault, particularly when three out of the six eye witnesses had not identified them
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
RANBlR v. PUNJAB (Dua,/.)
105
:at the trial.
The medical evidence, according to the High Court, was
consistent with the prosecution case against the appellants and the
F.l.R. was of considerable corroborative value.
.
It was contended in the High Court on behalf of the accused persons that the statement of Jaidev on the basis of which F.l.R. was
recorded had not been taken down on the spot, but had been recorded
later in. the hospital where Jaidev had been removed.
Even accepting
this contention,· the High Court found it difficult to believe that within
such.a short time Jaidev who had been badly injured would be able to
fabricate such a detailed and complicated version of the incident.
Accepting the subst.ratum of the prosecution case, the learned Single
Judge after scrutiny of the testimony of the eye witnesses gave benefit
of doubt to the other appellants before him except the five appellants
who have appealed to this Court.
As observed earlier, th~ appeal of
the present five appellants was dismissed by the High Court, but that
of their other co-appellants was allowed.
In this Court, Shri N. N. Goswami again took us through certain
passages from the evidence of some of the eye witnesses and also referred us to certain passages from the judgments of the trial court and
of the High .Court for the purpose of showing that the testimony of the
eye witnesses relied upon by the High Court is wholly unacceptable.
According to the appellants' submission there is a chance of false implication of all the accused persons with the result that the present.
appellants should also haye been given the benefit of doubt. The refusal on the part of the trial court and of the. High Court to give such
benefit of doubt to the appellants, according to the learned counsel, has
resulted in grave failure of justice.
No doubt, in cases of party factions, there is generally speaking, a
tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some
innocent persons also along with the guilty ones, but normally where
the general substratum of the occurrence canrtot be he!<;! to arouse any
reasonable doubt or suspicion about its having taken place, then the
prosecution witnesses, provided they are held to have witnessed the
occurrence and to be in a position to identify the assailants, are ordinarily not to be assumed to have left out the actual offenders or the
guilty persons.
Although the witnesses for the prosecution are in such
circumstances prone to exaggerate the culpability of the actual assailants as also to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent members of the opposite party as well, the court has to
sift the evidence an_d after a close scrutiny with anxious care and caution to try to come to a judicial conclusion as to who out of the accused
persons can be safely considered to have taken part in the assault.
As
pointed out in Deep Chand v. State of Haryana( 1), the maxim falsus
in uno falsus in omnib.us is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions
in this country and, therefore, it is the 4uty o! the Court in cases where
a witness has been found to have given W)reliable evidence in regard
to certain particulars, to scrutinise the rest ot his evidence with care
and· caution. If the remaining evidence in trust-WQrthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then lhe court should
(!) [19691 (3) s.c.c. 890.
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974 J 1 S.C,R.
uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and
A.
trust-worthy. In our view the evidence believed by both the courts
with respect to the five appellants before us is acceptable, and, if
accepted, it certainly proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The
appellants' counsel also faintly contended that Tota Ram P.W.7 was
examined by the police after considerable delay, the suggestion being
that his evidence must be looked at with suspicion.
We are not impressed by this submission.
The fact of delayed examination of Tota
B
Ram should, in our opinion, have been put to the Investigating Officer
•
so as to enable him to explain the undue delay, if any, in examining
Tota Ram.
The question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some
unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely support the prosecution case.
It is,
therefore, essential that the Investigating Officer should be asked speciC
fically about the delay and the reasons therefor.
Tota Ram, P.W.7
has stated that it was out of fear oi the accused persons that he had
hidden himself for four days.
He left his house without telling any
member of the family about it.
The Investigating Officers were not
asked any question about the time of examination of Tota Ram. It
may be mentioned that Bhagat Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, C.I.D.
])
Interrogation Centre, was attached to police station, Abohar in
August, 1963 and it was he, who having heard cries like "Mardiya
Mardiya" from outside the police station, had rushed to the spdt and
found Jaidev and Dharam Vir lying injured ·on the road.
On August
12, 1963, Parphul Singh, Inspector, C.I.D. took over investigation from
Bhagat Singh.
Parphul Singh has appeared as
P.W.14.
Though
Bhagat Singh has been cross-examined at some length, _no question has
been put to him with respect to the examination of Tota Ram P.W.7.
E.
May be that he had nothing to do with it. The cross-exapiination of
Parphul Singh, P.W. 14 is, however, extremely brief and he too has not
been questioned about any delay in examining Tota Ram.
A faint suggestion has also been made that although according to
the prosecution version, there were three jeeps engaged in the commission of the offence, tracks of only one jeep were traceable, with the
result that the prosecution story as a whole must be considered to be
untmstworthy.
This argument was also raised in the trial cou;t but
repel.Jed in the following words :-·
"The learned counsel forgets that the three jeeps were
not supposed to run side by side. If the jeeps were running
one behind the other, practically one track of the jeep could
be noticed, and no more.
Moreover, A.SJ. Bhagat Singh
deposed on the point from memory.
His site plan does not
indicate that the track was of only one jeep, nor he has referred to a nofe in the case diary, to support his assertion
on the point.
Thus there is no discrepancy between the eye
witnesses and A.S.I. Bhagat Singh on the point."
This polnt does not seem to have been pressed in the High Court and
indeed even in the grounds of appeal, it does not seem to have been
specifically raised.
F
G
H
A
B
c
RA:<BIR v. PUNJAB (Dua, /,)
107
In our opinion, the 'rial court after very extensively dealing with
the entire evidence rightly upheld the substratum of the prosecution
story. No doubt, it held some others also guilty but that does not by
itself show that the trial court was not right in convicting the. appellants.
The High Court went into the i;>oints urged befo_re it.
We are wholly
unable to find any infirmity in its judgment which would justify interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The conclusions of the
High Court on facts after examining and considering the evidence and
the material on the record, are final unless some serious defect in its
appraisal of evidence or otherwise suggesting failure of justice or grave
injustice is pointed out.
The arguments raised before us relate to,
mere appraisal of evidence which, normally speaking, as a practice this
Court does not μndert~ke under Article 136 of the Constitution.
No
special or extraordinary feature has been brought out justifying departure ffom the normal practice.
The appeal must, therefore, fail and is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissetl.