"False In One, False In All" Doctrine Doesn't Apply In India: J&K High Court Partially Overturns Acquittal In 24-Yr-Old Assault Case

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—"false in one thing, false in everything" is inapplicable in Indian courts.Instead, the court comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Sanjay Dhar emphasized the necessity of carefully sifting through evidence, separating unreliable portions while relying on credible and corroborated testimony. Partly overturning the acquittal of one Showkat Ali, who was charged in a 2000 assault case and convicting him under Section 325 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) Justice Dhar for the bench stated, “The job of the Court is to discard that portion of the evidence which appears to be unreliable and while doing so, that part of testimony of the witnesses, which is reliable and is corroborated by other circumstances in the case, has to be relied upon. When we adopt the said approach to the instant case, we have no manner of doubt in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that respondent No.1/Accused Showkat Ali did launch an attack upon the injured”Background:The case originated from an FIR registered on April 5, 2000, at Police Station Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu, following a violent altercation stemming from a longstanding land dispute. According to the prosecution, Mohd Ashraf was attacked with a Pathi by Showkat Ali, leading to grievous injuries.The trial court, in its judgment in 2012 acquitted all the accused, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the State filed a criminal acquittal appeal.The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Amit Gupta, argued that the trial court had failed to properly assess the evidence, dismissing credible testimony on flimsy grounds. The prosecution maintained that there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused, particularly the testimony of Mohd Ashraf, which was supported by medical reports. In contrast, the defense counsel, Mr. S.M. Chowdhary, contended that the case was rooted in personal animosity, leading to exaggerated and fabricated allegations by the complainant's side.Court's Observations:In delivering the judgment the bench meticulously dissected the trial court's reasoning, pointing out critical errors in the blanket rejection of prosecution evidence. The court observed that while some parts of the testimony were contradictory, this did not warrant dismissing the entire case. Indian courts, unlike those adhering strictly to the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, are required to evaluate evidence holistically, discarding falsehoods and retaining reliable facts, the court underscored. The court found the testimony of Mohd Ashraf, the injured victim, to be credible and consistent. His account, corroborated by medical evidence, clearly established that Showkat Ali attacked him with a Pathi, causing grievous injuries. Despite minor contradictions in other witnesses' statements, the court held that Ashraf's testimony, supported by the medical report, was sufficient to establish guilt.However, the court noted discrepancies in the claims regarding injuries to other witnesses. These contradictions, coupled with the absence of medical corroboration, led the court to conclude that the testimonies were exaggerated, possibly influenced by prior enmity between the parties. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's findings that no reliable evidence supported the injuries claimed by these witnesses.Furthermore, the court scrutinized the prosecution's failure to prove the recovery of the weapon as the investigating officer admitted that no independent witnesses were present during the recovery, rendering the evidence unreliable.“This makes the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence “Pathi‟ highly unreliable. In the absence of recovery of weapon of offence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the grievous injury‟ that was sustained by PW Mohd Ashraf, was caused by a “Pathi‟ which is definitely a dangerous weapon. Thus, charge for offence under Section 326 RPC is not established against respondent”, the court reasoned. The Court thus found Ali guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 RPC, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 307 and 448. Given the prolonged legal process spanning over two decades, the court took a lenient view, sentencing Ali to one month of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Showkat AliCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 324Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

"False In One, False In All" Doctrine Doesn't Apply In India: J&K High Court Partially Overturns Acquittal In 24-Yr-Old Assault Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags