AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramaswami, J.—The point of law taken is that the prosecution evidence being against all the accused and having been disbelieved with regard to some cannot be believed with reference to others: Vide AIR 1944 1 (Federal Court) and In Re: Shanbagaperumal Naicker and Others, and Venkataratnam v. Ramasasrulu 1939 MWN 1256 (C) and any conviction, based on such evidence is illegal and unjust. But it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Nisar Ali Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, , that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of 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''''.
In this case both the courts below have given reasons for accepting a portion of the testimony and for rejecting the rest. There are no grounds to interfere. The revision is dismissed.