Acquittal of some co-accused does not preclude conviction of others on the same evidence.

On 1 September 1984, a dispute over use of a public hand pump escalated into a firearm attack.

The prosecution alleged that Hari Ram and Man Singh returned with guns; Hari Ram shot Nem Chand, who died, and Man Singh shot Ram Swaroop, who was injured.

The trial court acquitted Chhadammi and Nanku but convicted Hari Ram under Sections 302 and 307/34 IPC and Man Singh under Sections 302/34 and 307 IPC.

Hari Ram died during the appeal, which therefore proceeded only as to Man Singh.

Man Singh challenged the reliability of the related eyewitnesses, the absence of independent witnesses, alleged contradictions, and the conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused.

1. Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses, including injured witness Ram Swaroop, was reliable and sufficient to sustain Man Singh’s conviction.

2. Whether the acquittal of Chhadammi and Nanku on the prosecution evidence required the court to reject that evidence against Man Singh.

3. Whether the evidence established Man Singh’s participation and common intention to support his convictions under Sections 302/34 and 307 IPC.

The court applied Sections 302, 307 and 34 IPC to the alleged murder, attempted murder and acts committed in furtherance of common intention.

An injured eyewitness’s evidence is not to be rejected merely because of possible enmity, but must be carefully scrutinised; a witness’s relationship to the deceased likewise does not, by itself, make the witness unreliable.

Under Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a mandatory rule of evidence; a court may assess and accept testimony against some accused while rejecting it against others.

Common intention may be inferred from the accused’s conduct and the circumstances of the crime.

The High Court found that the prompt FIR, the consistent accounts of Chunni Lal, injured witness Ram Swaroop and Mohan Lal, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution version.

Ram Swaroop’s firearm injuries corroborated his presence and account, while the witnesses’ relationship to Nem Chand did not undermine their evidence because the court found it reliable after scrutiny.

The acquittal of Chhadammi and Nanku did not require Man Singh’s acquittal: the trial court had found their presence and roles doubtful, whereas the evidence against Man Singh was found credible; the maxim falsus in uno did not compel rejection of the entire testimony.

The court further held that Man Singh’s return to the scene armed with a gun and his firing at the deceased and injured witness established his participation and supported the finding of common intention.

As Man Singh was on bail, the court cancelled his personal bonds and discharged his sureties, directing him to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, within one month to serve the remaining sentence; failing surrender, non-bailable warrants were to issue.