Skip to content


In Re: Sri Sevuga Moopan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 492 of 1957 (Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 482 of 1957)
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad750; 1957CriLJ1298; (1957)2MLJ30
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 5
AppellantIn Re: Sri Sevuga Moopan and anr.
Advocates:S. Kothandarama Nainar, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredNisar Ali v. State of U. P.
Excerpt:
- .....vide piare dusadh v. emperor and shanbagaperumal naicker v. emperor : air1940mad279 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 v. state of u. p. : 1957crilj550 , 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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. The point of law taken is that the prosecufion evidence being against all the accused and having been disbelieved with regard to some cannot be believed with reference to others: Vide Piare Dusadh v. Emperor and Shanbagaperumal Naicker v. Emperor : AIR1940Mad279 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 v. State of U. P. : 1957CriLJ550 , 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''.

2. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //