KESHORAM GORA versus STATE OF ASSAM

KESHORAM GORA versus STATE OF ASSAM

The High Court correctly rejected the use of evidence of witnesses declared hostile as representing the prosecution, applied the rule that falsus unus falsus omnibus is inapplicable to criminal trials, treated the appellant's statement as containing separable inculpatory and exculpatory parts, and on the accepted evidence (including the appellant's admission and corroboration by other witnesses) found that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence; accordingly the conviction was altered from section 302/34 to section 304 Part II/34 and sentence reduced.

Parties
Appellant: Keshoram Bora; Respondent: State of Assam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the Judgment and Order Dated 13 8 1976 of the Assam High Court in Cr. A. No. 3/1971 (criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1976)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Private Defence, Hostile Witness, Separable Admissions, Conviction and Sentence
Criminal Law Evidence Murder Private Defence Hostile Witness Separable Admissions Conviction and Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keshoram Bora

Appellant

State of Assam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the Judgment and Order Dated 13 8 1976 of the Assam High Court in Cr. A. No. 3/1971 (criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1976)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in treating hostile witnesses as spokesmen for the prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the principle falsus unus falsus omnibus applies in criminal trials
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's admissions were separable into inculpatory and exculpatory parts and one part could be accepted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly rejected the use of evidence of witnesses declared hostile as representing the prosecution, applied the rule that falsus unus falsus omnibus is inapplicable to criminal trials, treated the appellant's statement as containing separable inculpatory and exculpatory parts, and on the accepted evidence (including the appellant's admission and corroboration by other witnesses) found that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence; accordingly the conviction was altered from section 302/34 to section 304 Part II/34 and sentence reduced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction of appellant altered from under section 302/34 to under section 304(2)/34 (section 304 Part II/34) of the Indian Penal Code
  • Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment