FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS

 The maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’  does not occupy the status of law in India. This maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution.

The maxim means if a thing is false in respect of one it must be taken to be false in respect of all. Arguments come on this point that if a part of the evidence given by a witness has been disbelieved, the whole of it should be disbelieved  as a rule of law.  All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded.[1]

    In the case of N. Jayaraman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu[2], it was clear that due to mutual enmity amongst Trade Unions, the deceased was injured and because of these injuries the deceased died. The prosecution case was that every accused caused the injury. But four accused were released and two were convicted. It was held by Supreme Court that only because the testimony of some of the witnesses were not sufficient for conviction, the testimony of every(all) witnesses should be rejected, this is not correct and the phrase ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’   was not applied in to to.

---

[1] Nisar Ali Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 366

[2] AIR 1993 SC 777

Photo - https://www.google.com/search?q=false&sxsrf=ALeKk00PINlKz3hDDmeTwlPux7wtm7igKA:1600960650403&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIjfeWi4LsAhUEzDgGHZ3CAUwQ_AUoAXoECA8QAw&biw=1366&bih=618#imgrc=NM-anWDX3oIRBM