Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 5, 106, 101 and 104

  P L D 1957 Supreme Court (Ind.) 50         (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)------   ----Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'-Criminal trial of several accused-Appreciation of evidence--Witness disbelieved against some accused whether can be believed against the rest.   Where some of the accused against whom the direct evi dence was the same as against the appellant, were acquitted it does not follow as a necessary corollary that because the other accused have been acquitted the appellants also must be simi larly acquitted.   If the lower Court had differentiated the case of the accus ed who had been acquitted, from that of other accused on the ground of absence of motive in the former case and in addition to that the evidence of the witnesses as against the convicted accused was consistent and not shaken by cross-examination, there is no sufficient reason for the Appellate Court to go behind the finding which was based by the lower Court on that evidence.   Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab A I R 1955 S C 762 distinguished.   Dalip Singh v. The State of Punjab A I R 1953 S C 364 rel.   (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-----   ---S. 5-Credibility of witness Relationship of prosecution witness to murdered man-Does not make him incompetent witness.   Mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the murdered man is no ground for not acting upon their testi mony if it is otherwise reliable inasmuch as the witnesses were competent witnesses who could be expected to be near about the place of occurrence and could have seen what happened.   (c) Precedents------Value.   Reference to reported case when facts alone are involved can be by way of illustration only and not by way of an appeal to precedent, because on facts no two cases can be similar.   (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-----   ----Ss. 106, 101 and 104 Burden of proof-Alibi.   The burden of proving alibi undoubtedly lies on the accused setting up the defence. The burden of proving the case against the accused is however on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a plausible defence.  …