Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of an appellant in a murder case dating back to 1987, ruling that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not a mandatory rule of law in India but merely a rule of caution. The Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Islam, affirming the judgment of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the conviction dated July 17, 1990, in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 1988. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant, Islam, along with co-accused Naseem, were nephews of the deceased, Mehmoodan. A property dispute existed between the parties, with the accused allegedly intending to usurp Mehmoodan’s land.
On November 2, 1987, at 6:00 a.m., while Mehmoodan was going to answer the call of nature near the ‘gher’ of Inam Ilahi, she was assaulted. The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that the accused, along with associates Altaf and Yamin, attacked her with a ‘Palkati’ (axe). Upon hearing her cries, the informant Shareef Ahmad (PW-1) and other witnesses rushed to the spot, witnessing the accused dragging and assaulting the victim. The assailants fled upon seeing the witnesses. Mehmoodan succumbed to neck injuries caused by the axe.
The police recovered the blood-stained axe twenty steps from the body, along with stained clothes and soil. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple lacerated wounds with underlying bone cuts on the face and neck, resulting in death due to hemorrhage and shock. The trial court convicted Islam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but acquitted the other co-accused, Naseem and Altaf, based on the testimony of PW-1, who assigned the specific role of assault only to Islam.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant raised several contentions to challenge the conviction:
- Ante-timed FIR: It was argued that the FIR was ante-timed and prepared after deliberations. The counsel pointed out that the FIR reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) only on November 7, 1987, five days after the incident. Discrepancies in the distance recorded in the FIR versus the inquest report were also highlighted.
- Contradictions in Testimony: The defence argued that PW-1’s testimony contradicted the FIR regarding the number of assailants and their specific roles. While the FIR named four assailants, PW-1 deposed that only the appellant hit the deceased while others held her.
- Medical Evidence: The appellant contended that the post-mortem report noted “lacerated wounds,” whereas the alleged weapon was a sharp-edged axe (“Palkati”). The doctor (PW-3) had initially stated during cross-examination that the injuries could not be caused by an axe.
- Acquittal of Co-accused: It was argued that since the trial court disbelieved the prosecution’s case regarding the co-accused based on the same evidence, the appellant should also have been acquitted.
The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State rebutted these arguments, stating that the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 proved the prosecution case beyond doubt. The AGA emphasized that the recovery of the axe with human blood corroborated the eye-witness accounts and that the doctor had subsequently admitted to a clerical error in describing the nature of the wounds.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and the trial court’s findings.
On the Delay of the FIR: The Court rejected the argument that the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate indicated it was ante-timed. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Subash and Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. (1987), the Bench observed that mere delay in the receipt of the report by the Magistrate is not sufficient to infer that the FIR was ante-timed if the General Diary entry confirms its timely dispatch. The Court noted the trial court’s finding that the delay was due to the distance of 48 kilometers between the police station and the headquarters.
On Medical Evidence: Addressing the discrepancy between the “lacerated wounds” recorded in the post-mortem and the use of an axe, the Court relied on the doctor’s clarification. When questioned by the trial court, PW-3 admitted that he had “wrongly referred the ante-mortem injuries as lacerated wounds and the injuries should have been referred as incised wounds,” noting that the underlying bone cuts indicated the use of a sharp weapon like an axe.
On Eye-Witness Testimony: The Court found PW-1 to be a reliable witness. Regarding the discrepancies between the FIR and the deposition, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rajan vs. State of Haryana (2025), which held that “minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case… would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.”
The Bench observed:
“The testimony of an eye-witness cannot be rejected only because the FIR did not narrate, with mathematical precision, the role of different persons in the crime.”
On the Acquittal of Co-accused: The Court firmly rejected the application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Relying on Nisar Ali vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Court stated:
“Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a principle of law applicable in India. It is only a rule of caution. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case the remaining part of the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, his conviction can be maintained notwithstanding the acquittal of other co-accused.”
On Motive: The Court held that while the property dispute provided a clear motive, the existence of direct eye-witness evidence rendered the absence of motive less relevant.
Decision
The High Court found no sufficient reasons to interfere with the trial court’s findings. The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant, Islam, under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment.
The Court directed:
“The appellant shall surrender before the trial court by 25th February, 2026 and shall be taken in custody and sent to jail for completing the sentence awarded by the trial court.”
The appeal was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Islam vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 1990
- Bench: Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- Counsel for Appellant: Kameshwar Singh, Krishna Kant Shukla, Rama Shanker Mishra
- Counsel for Respondent: D.G.A.
