Meaning of 'Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus' - Views of the Supreme Court

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Arvind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1099, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Latin Maxim “Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus” which is a rule of caution in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.

 

DICTIONARY MEANING

 

Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines “Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus” as a Legal Doctrine that literally means “false in one thing, false in all.” In earlier times, this Maxim postulated that “if the jury believes that a witness’s testimony on a material issue is intentionally deceitful, the jury may disregard all of that witness’s testimony.”

 

Basically, this maxim explains that if a witness states a false fact that is material to the case, then his entire testimony may be discarded by the Court. Usually, this maxim does not have much utility in present times as today, the judges have ample discretion to even take into account the testimony of a hostile witness. But be that as it may, let us understand this maxim with the help of the observations of the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court explained that Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus is a principle that “when a witness deposes falsehood, the evidence in its entirety has to be eschewed.” According to the Court, the principle of Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus “has not assumed the status of law but continues only as a rule of caution. One has to see the nature of discrepancy in a given case. When the discrepancies are very material shaking the very credibility of the witness” then it is for the said court to either accept or reject such testimony.

 

Secondly, the Court cited the case of Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50, to explain that “the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution.”

 

Thirdly, the Court also noted that “the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

 

And lastly, the Court cautioned that “mere discrepancies in the evidence would not make the prosecution version as false” and even if there is a delay in lodging of the FIR, that “delay per se can never be a ground for acquittal when there is adequate evidence both oral and documentary in support of the prosecution version.”

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Thus, following important points emerge with respect to the Latin Maxim “Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus”: -

 

a. It means that “when a witness deposes falsehood, the evidence in its entirety has to be eschewed.”

b. This Maxim is merely a rule of caution and not a law in the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.

c. “The prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused.”

d. “Mere discrepancies in the evidence would not make the prosecution version as false” and would not attract the Latin Maxim “Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus.”

 

Therefore, I hope that the meaning and the nature of the Latin Maxim“Falsus in Uno-Falsus in Omnibus” we just discussed is clear by now.