Ilangovan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Background
A family feud, sparked by an alleged illicit relationship between the complainant's brother and a rival family's daughter, erupted into a street fight in 2002. The appellant struck the complainant with an iron rod and then fatally struck the complainant's mother on the head when she tried to intervene. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder (and a lesser assault charge) while acquitting three co-accused relatives for lack of evidence; the High Court later downgraded his murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding the incident was a "free fight," but upheld the conviction otherwise.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument that because his co-accused relatives were acquitted, he should be too, holding that there is no automatic rule requiring an accused's acquittal merely because co-accused were acquitted: the evidence against each accused must be assessed on its own strength, and here the evidence against the appellant (the main assailant) was far stronger and consistent with the medical and documentary record. The Court also declined to apply the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" principle (that a witness disbelieved on one point must be disbelieved entirely), noting it is merely a rule of caution, not a mandatory rule of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and since this cancelled the appellant's bail, he was directed to surrender to serve his remaining sentence.
Lesson Learnt
The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to acquittal: courts assess the quality and consistency of evidence against each person separately, and a witness's testimony can be accepted for one accused even if disbelieved concerning another.