Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus

Doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not followed in criminal justice system of the country and the golden principle of "separating the grain from the chaff" is now practised while appraising the evidence.

Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in prevalent system of criminal administration of justice and there is no rule of universal application that where some accused persons have not been found guilty, the other accused would ipso facto stand acquitted, because the Court has to sift the grain from the chaff.

Court is bound to sift grain from the chaff.

Maxim is no more now, of universal application.

Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable for discarding the evidence of the witnesses as a whole and hence so much of the- evidence which is credible can be accepted.

Maxim "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not strictly applicable in administration of criminal justice.

Maxim having no universal application, grain had to be sifted from the chaff; evidence, was to be scrutinized and assessed to ensure administration of justice.

Testimony of a witness is acceptable against one set of accused though the same has been rejected against another set of accused facing same trial.

Principles stated.

Theory of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" having been discarded by the superior Courts grain has to be sifted out of the chaff.

Principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" Ilas since long been discarded by the Courts and prevalent rule is that truth has to be sifted from falsehood.

Maxim -"Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is no more operative and the rule of sifting the grain from the chaff is to be applied while appraising the evidence in criminal cases.

Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one false in all) could not be applied for administration of criminal justice as in the present day society, in most of the cases witnesses of complainant party always throw the net very wide to implicate a large number of actual culprit's family members and due to that phenomenon, the burden of Court in administering criminal justice has increased and the Courts have to sift chaff from grain.

Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not universal application and is not applicable in appraisement of evidence in criminal cases

Trend of judgments in criminal jurisdiction is for sifting grain from chaff.

[Maxim].

Court can sift the grain from the chaff and convict the accused whose guilt is established beyond any doubt and acquit the accused whose involvement is not free from doubt.

[Criminal trial].

Rule "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is no longer applicable and not unoften the Court has to sift the grain from the chaff.

Courts can sift the grain from the chaff and convict those accused whose guilt is established beyond any doubt and can acquit those whose involvement is not free from doubt.

[Maxim].

Maxim not followed in Pakistan and rather it was emphasised that Court's duty was to sift grain from chaff.

Occurrence a daylight affair-Deceased undoubtedly in a position to identify assailants giving hatchet blows on his head-Held, people do add innocent persons alongwith guilty, identified guilty persons cannot be left out altogether-Grain has to be sifted from chaff in such circumstances of case.-[Maxim]

Ocular account with regard to gunshot injury caused to deceased disbelieved for being inconsistent with medical evidence-Trial Court also disbelieving such ocular testimony qua acquitted coaccused but relied upon in case of accused-Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" not being applicable to administration of justice in Pakistan trial Court, held, rightly relied upon evidence against accused for recording their conviction.

Not followed by Courts in Pakistan.

Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all)-Indivisibility of credit of witnesses-Superior Courts though not accepted principle of maxim and theory of `indivisibility of credit' and tried to `sift grain from chaff' yet never without serious reservations and doubts about witnesses deliberately involving innocent persons in a charge of capital nature-Acquittal, when clean in such cases, Courts insist upon independent and strong corroboration for giving finding of guilty against co-accused of innocent victim of false implication by same witnesses-Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302/34

Ss. 148, 302 & 307 read with S. 149-[Murder case]-Prosecution eye-witnesses though related to deceased yet not having any reason to implicate accused appellant falsely and attribute to him fatal spear blow-One of prosecution witnesses also bearing injuries received in course of same incident-Occurrence having taken place in broad daylight witness had full opportunity of observing whole incident Nothing brought on record to show witness having indulged in any exaggeration-Mere fact of site plan showing two points between which deceased dragged after occurrence and witnesses having deposed deceased being lifted by assailants and not dragged, held, no real contradiction-Word "dragged" used by draftsman need not be taken in literal sense and could cover act of carrying deceased from one point to another-Accused appellant, held, rightly convicted.

Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Falsus in uno falsus to omnibus-Discarded by superior Courts in Pakistan-Each case to be considered on its own merits. -Penal Code (XLV of 1864). S. 302.

Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all)-Doctrine rarely and exceptionally invoked by Supreme Court.

Witness Maxim discarded by Superior Courts of country-Integrity of witness-No longer indivisible.

S. 302-Witness-Maxim: falsus in uno falsus in omnibus-Principle not accepted by Supreme Court-Evidence not accepted in same respects need not necessarily be rejected in other respects.

S. 302-Eve-witnesses, evidence of Maxim: falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing; faise in all) not followed by Courts in this country in context of conditions prevailing here-Courts have duty to sift grain from chaff=Mere fact of evidence of eye-witnesses being not relied upon against one of accused-Would not react on credibility of evidence against other accused.

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus no longer applicable-Similarly rule that integrity of witness indivisible, cannot be accepted as universal truth-Grain has to be sifted from chaff in each case-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing , false in all)-Principle not of universal application-.Case should be considered on its own facts.

Dying declaration of deceased attributing no weapon to co-accused but stating that they had merely caught hold of him while being attacked by accused-Eye-witnesses, however, deposing co-accused armed with weapons (spade and stick)-Circumstances indicating occurrence as single-handed fight between deceased and accused

Evidence in respect of co-accused, in circumstances, disbelieved.