Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and J B Pardiwala observed that the principle governing “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of T G Krishnamurthy & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Background

• The Trial Court and Karnataka High Court convicted the appellants for murdering the two deceased and injuring the witnesses.
  • They were charged with offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• High Court acquitted other accused persons holding that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be applied for the death of deceased no. 2.
  • However, taking note of the fact that these witnesses are injured eyewitnesses, the conviction was rendered only for the death of the deceased no. 1 and for the injuries caused to the witnesses.
• The counsel for appellant in the present appeal contended that the view of the High Court (that testimony of prosecutrix witnesses cannot be relied upon for the charge pertaining to the death of the deceased no.2), ought to have been applied for the other offences as well.

Court’s Observation

• The Apex Court observed it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

• The Latin maxim means false in one thing, false in everything.
• As a general rule, the law presumes that if certain facts out of same story are false, the entire story is false.
• The decision of the court is based on the testimony of witnesses.
  • Hence, it is generally considered that the witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any other matter in the same case.
• It has been reiterated by the Apex Court for several times that “The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop”.

Case Laws

• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002):
  • The SC held that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law.
  • The maxim is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that the testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded.
• Prem Singh v. State of Haryana (2009):
  • The SC held that it is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India.
• Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019):
  • The SC held that the witnesses cannot be termed as liars.