The Allahabad High Court upheld life imprisonment in a 1987 murder case, holding that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not binding law in India but only a rule of caution. The appeal was dismissed.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has upheld the life imprisonment and conviction of an appellant in a murder case from 1987, ruling that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything)” is not a binding rule of law in India, but rather a guideline of caution.
The bench, which included Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Islam, confirming the decision of the IV Additional Sessions Judge in Saharanpur.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Decide: Can Murder Convict Serve Consecutive Life Sentences?
Factual Background of the Case
The appeal contested the conviction handed down on July 17, 1990, in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 1988. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, Islam, and co-accused Naseem were nephews of the deceased, Mehmoodan, with a property dispute motivating their actions to allegedly seize land belonging to Mehmoodan. On November 2, 1987, at 6:00 a.m., Mehmoodan was attacked by the accused near the ‘gher’ of Inam Ilahi while she was going to relieve herself.
The First Information Report (FIR) stated that the accused, along with associates Altaf and Yamin, assaulted her with a ‘Palkati’ (axe). Hearing her screams, the informant Shareef Ahmad (PW-1) and other witnesses rushed to the scene, witnessing the accused dragging and attacking the victim. The assailants fled when they saw the witnesses. Mehmoodan died from neck injuries inflicted by the axe.
The police later recovered the blood stained axe from a location about twenty steps away from the body, along with stained clothing and soil. The post-mortem revealed multiple lacerated wounds with bone damage to the face and neck, confirming that death resulted from hemorrhage and shock.
The trial court convicted Islam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but acquitted co-accused Naseem and Altaf, based on PW-1’s testimony, which attributed the assault solely to Islam.
ALSO READ: 104-Year Old Serving Life Sentence For Murder| SC Grants Interim Bail
Arguments of Parties:
The appellant’s counsel raised following arguments to contest the conviction:
Ante-timed FIR: It was alleged that the FIR was filed after deliberation, noting that it reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) five days after the incident on November 7, 1987. Discrepancies in the distance recorded in the FIR compared to the inquest report were highlighted.
Contradictions in Testimony: The defense argued that PW-1’s statements conflicted with the FIR concerning the number of assailants and their roles. While the FIR mentioned four assailants, PW-1 testified that only Islam attacked the deceased.
Medical Evidence: The appellant contended that the post-mortem report indicated “lacerated wounds,” suggesting that these injuries could not have been caused by a sharp axe. During cross-examination, the doctor (PW-3) initially claimed the injuries were not consistent with an axe.
Acquittal of Co-accused: The defense argued that since the trial court discredited the prosecution’s case against the co-accused based on the same evidence, Islam should likewise have been acquitted.
The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State countered these arguments, asserting that the eyewitness accounts from PW-1 and PW-2 convincingly supported the prosecution’s case. The AGA noted that the recovery of the axe with blood corroborated the eyewitness testimony and that the doctor had since acknowledged a clerical mistake concerning the nature of the wounds.
Analysis of the Court:
The High Court carefully evaluated the evidence and the trial court’s conclusions.
Delay of the FIR: The Court dismissed claims that the delay in bringing the FIR to the Magistrate indicated it was ante-timed. Referencing a Supreme Court case Subash and Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. 1987, the Bench stated that a mere delay in filing does not imply an ante-timed FIR if timely dispatch is confirmed in the General Diary. The Court noted that the delay was due to the 48 kilometer distance between the police station and headquarters.
Medical Evidence: Concerning the differences between “lacerated wounds” noted in the post-mortem and the use of an axe, the Court relied on the doctor’s clarification. PW-3 admitted that he had improperly categorized the injuries as lacerated wounds, explaining they should have been classified as incised wounds, which indicated the use of a sharp weapon like an axe.
ALSO READ: Honeymoon Horror: Court Extends Remand of Wife & Lover in Businessman’s Murder Case
Eye-Witness Testimony: The Court regarded PW-1 as a credible witness. The Court referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling Rajan vs. State of Haryana 2025 .Noting minor discrepancies between the FIR and trial testimony, stated 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 concluded,
“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.”
Acquittal of Co-accused: The Court firmly refuted the application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Citing Nisar Ali vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Court emphasized that,
“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.”
Motive: The Court recognized that while the property dispute offered a clear motive, the direct eyewitness evidence diminished the relevance of motive.
Final Order of the Court:
The High Court found no compelling reasons to set aside the trial court’s findings. It affirmed the conviction of the appellant, Islam, under Section 302 IPC, along with the life sentence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
The Court ordered,
“The appellant shall surrender before the trial court by 25th February, 2026, and shall be taken into custody and sent to jail for completing the sentence awarded by the trial court.”
Case Title: Islam vs. State of U.P Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 1990
Read Attachment: