You are watching: False in one false in all


“Supreme Court reiteprices that the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one point, false in everything) is not applicable in India”

It is a general presumption that if specific facts out of a narrative is false, then the entire narrative is additionally false. However before, the Supreme Court bench consisting of of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also Justice Hemant Gupta reiterated in the matter of Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu that the legal maxim of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. The Appellant competed that the reliance on the testimony of a witness for conviction is incorrect if a component of the testimony is false and also unreliable. To support its disagreements, the counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments in Ram Laxguy vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389, Noushad alias Noushad Pasha and also Others vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513 and Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 and competed that if the testimony of the witness is discovered to be undependable in respect of component of the statement, then the other component of the statement cannot be made basis to convict the accsupplied.

The Counsel for the Respondents described the judgment of Gangadhar Behera and also Others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 to justify that the whole testimony of a witness cannot be discarded or disconcerned merely bereason a component of the testimony is found to be not true. Thus, the Bench dismissed the appeals as they lacked merits whilst relying on the judgment in Gangadhar Behera which elaborated on the non-appliccapacity of the maxim as follows:

“ Falsity of a particular product witness or product specific would not destroy it from the beginning to finish. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has actually not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the condition of rule of regulation. It is merely a ascendancy of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such situations testimony may be disconcerned, and also not that it should be dispertained to. The doctrine merely requires the question of weight of proof which a court might use in a given set of situations, but it is not what may be referred to as “a mandatory rule of evidence……………………………

The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a totality body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an unfact in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would certainly pertained to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot assist in providing embroidery to a story, however, true in the primary.

See more: How Long Is 127 Minutes To Hours, How Long Is 127 Minutes In Hours

Thus, it has to be appincreased in each case regarding what degree the proof is worthy of acceptance, and simply because in some respects the court considers the very same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a issue of law that it must be dispertained to in all respects too. The proof has to be sifted via care.”