Question: Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus] Answer Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus The maxim “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a Latin term which means “false in one thing, false in everything.” It in… Read More »

Question: Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus] Answer Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus The maxim “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a Latin term which means “false in one thing, false in everything.” It in fact is a legal principle in common law that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not at all credible to testify about any other matter. The said...

Question: Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [Explain the legal word Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus]

Answer

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

The maxim “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a Latin term which means “false in one thing, false in everything.” It in fact is a legal principle in common law that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not at all credible to testify about any other matter.

The said maxim has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law. It is only a rule of caution. The maxim has no application in India. Where the evidence of a witness was not accepted in reference to some of the accused persons, the court did not accept the argument that his testimony should be rejected against all accused persons. A witness cannot be taken to be false in all respects when he has been shown to be false in one respect.

It is therefore not required that the entire testimony of a witness be disregarded because one portion of such testimony is found to be false. Thus, the court can separate the truth from the false statements in the witnesses’ testimony.

Even where a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, if the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, his conviction can be sustained notwithstanding the acquittal of a number of his co-accused The doctrine merely involves the weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence‘ (Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366).


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

Updated On 2022-04-16T11:49:28+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story