You are watching: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus


“Supreme Court reiterates that the rule of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is no applicable in India”

It is a general presumption the if specific facts out of a narrative is false, climate the whole narrative is likewise false. However, the can be fried Court bench consisting of of justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also Justice Hemant Gupta reiterated in the matter of Mahendran v. State the Tamil Nadu the the legitimate maxim the ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India. The Appellant completed that the dependence on the testimony the a witness for conviction is not correct if a part of the testimony is false and also unreliable. To assistance 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 also Others vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 2 SCC 513 and Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 and contended the if the testimony that the angry is discovered to it is in 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 for the Respondents referred to the judgment of Gangadhar Behera and also Others Vs. State that Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 come justify the the whole testimony of a witness can not be discarded or disregarded merely because a part of the testimony is uncovered to be not true. As such, the Bench dismissed the appeals together they short merits whilst relying on the referee in Gangadhar Behera i beg your pardon elaborated top top the non-applicability that the maxim together follows:

“ Falsity of a particular material angry or material specific would not ruin it indigenous the beginning to end. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and also the witnesses can not be branded together liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has actually not received general acceptance nor has actually this maxim pertained to occupy the standing of dominance of law. It is simply a ascendancy of caution. All that it quantities to, is that in such situations testimony may be disregarded, and also not that it need to be disregarded. The theory merely requires the concern of weight of evidence which a court may use in a given collection of circumstances, yet it is no what may be dubbed “a mandatory rule of evidence……………………………

The doctrine is a attention one especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because a witness to be evidently speak an untruth in part aspect, that is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses simply cannot help in offering embroidery to a story, however, true in the main.

See more: The Dream Center Church Of Atlanta Live Stream, The Dream Center Church Of Atlanta

Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what degree the evidence is worthy the acceptance, and merely since in part respects the court considers the same to be inadequate for placing reliance top top the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow together a issue of legislation that it should be disregarded in every respects together well. The evidence has to it is in sifted with care.”