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.
No comments:
Post a Comment