You are watching: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
“Supreme Court reiterates that the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is no applicable in India”
It is a basic presumption the if specific facts the end of a rigid is false, then the whole narrative is likewise false. However, the supreme Court bench making up of righteousness Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also Justice Hemant Gupta reiterated in the matter of Mahendran v. State that Tamil Nadu the the legal maxim the ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is no applicable in India. The Appellant contended that the reliance on the testimony of a witness because that conviction is incorrect if a component of the testimony is false and unreliable. To support its arguments, the counsel for the appellants relied ~ above the judgments in Ram Laxman vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 12 SCC 389, Noushad alias Noushad Pasha and Others vs. State the Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513 and also Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 and also contended that if the testimony of the evil is uncovered to be unreliable in respect of part of the statement, climate the other component of the statement cannot be made basis to convict the accused.
The Counsel because that the Respondents described the referee of Gangadhar Behera and Others Vs. State the Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 come justify the the entire testimony of a witness can not be discarded or disregarded merely because a part of the testimony is discovered to be not true. As such, the Bench dismissed the appeals as they lacked merits whilst relying top top the referee in Gangadhar Behera which elaborated top top the non-applicability the the maxim together follows:
“ Falsity that a specific material evil or material specific would not ruin it native the start to end. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has actually no application in India and also the witnesses can not be branded together liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has not received basic acceptance nor has this maxim pertained to occupy the condition of dominance of law. It is simply a rule of caution. All the it quantities to, is the in such instances testimony may be disregarded, and not the it need to be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the inquiry of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given collection of circumstances, however it is no what may be dubbed “a mandatory ascendancy of evidence……………………………
The theory is a danger one specially in India because that if a totality body the the testimony to be to it is in rejected, because a witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, the is come be fear that management of criminal righteousness would concerned a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot aid in providing embroidery come a story, however, true in the main.
See more: My Grandma Gave Me That Chain, Source: Facebook Photo: Facebook
Therefore, it needs to be appraised in every case regarding what degree the evidence is worthy the acceptance, and merely since in part respects the court considers the very same to be insufficient for put reliance on the testimony of a witness, that does no necessarily follow as a issue of law that it have to be disregarded in every respects as well. The evidence has to it is in sifted with care.”