You are watching: False in one false in all
“Supreme Court reiterates the the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India”
It is a general presumption that if certain facts the end of a narrative is false, then the whole narrative is also false. However, the can be fried Court bench consisting of of righteousness Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also Justice Hemant Gupta reiterated in the issue of Mahendran v. State the Tamil Nadu that the legitimate maxim the ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is no applicable in India. The Appellant completed that the dependency on the testimony the a witness for conviction is incorrect if a component of the testimony is false and also unreliable. To support its arguments, the counsel because that 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 of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513 and Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 and also contended that if the testimony the the witness is discovered to be unreliable in respect of part of the statement, then the other component of the statement cannot be made basis to convict the accused.
The Counsel for the Respondents described the referee of Gangadhar Behera and also Others Vs. State the Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 come justify the the entire testimony the a witness can not be discarded or disregarded merely because a component of the testimony is found to be not true. Together such, the Bench dismissed the appeals together they lacked merits whilst relying ~ above the referee in Gangadhar Behera i beg your pardon elaborated ~ above the non-applicability the the maxim together follows:
“ Falsity that a particular material witness or material specific would not damage it from the start to end. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses can not be branded together liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has actually this maxim come to occupy the condition of dominance of law. It is simply a dominance of caution. All that it quantities to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and also not the it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the inquiry of load of proof which a court may use in a given collection of circumstances, however it is not what may be dubbed “a mandatory dominion of evidence……………………………
The doctrine is a danger one especially in India because that if a totality body that the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness to be evidently speaking an untruth in part aspect, it is come be fear that administration of criminal righteousness would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery come a story, however, true in the main.
See more: Like The Pine Trees Lining The Winding Road I Got, I Got A Name Misheard Lyrics
Therefore, it has to be appraised in every case as to what level the evidence is worthy the acceptance, and merely due to the fact that in part respects the court considers the same to be inadequate for put reliance on the testimony the a witness, that does no necessarily follow together a matter of regulation that it should be disregarded in every respects together well. The proof has to be sifted with care.”