MAXIM OF *FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS* IS INAPPLICABLE TO INDIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

The State appealed against a Trial Court judgment dated 31.01.2020 which acquitted three respondents of charges under Section 307/34 IPC

On the night of 19-20 October 2017, the victim, Varadh Raj, was stabbed in the stomach

The victim alleged that Respondent No. 1 (Ramesh) stabbed him while Respondents No. 2 and 3 (Sonu and Rahul) held his hands

Two independent eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) testified that only Ramesh was involved in a scuffle and specifically ruled out the presence of Sonu and Rahul

PW-2 and PW-3 further claimed they intervened, snatched the knife from Ramesh, and threw it in a park

The Trial Court acquitted all three, citing contradictions between the victim’s version and the eyewitnesses regarding the presence of Respondents 2 and 3, and whether Ramesh fled or was apprehended

1. Whether the entire prosecution case should be discarded due to the victim's false implication of two co-accused (Respondents 2 and 3)

2. Whether the act of Respondent No. 1, resulting in "dangerous" injuries to the victim, satisfies the ingredients of "attempt to murder" under Section 307

The Court applied Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. regarding appeals against acquittal and Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder

The testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status and primacy unless major contradictions exist (Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra; State of U.P. v. Naresh)

It rejected the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), holding instead that courts must separate the grain from the chaff (Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar; State of U.P. v. Krishna Master)

Regarding Section 307, it applied the standard from Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, focusing on the intention or knowledge gathered from the nature of the weapon and the severity of the blow

The Court found that while the victim likely falsely implicated Respondents 2 and 3 due to prior enmity (as corroborated by the IO and PWs 2 and 3), this did not justify the total acquittal of Respondent No. 1

The Court held that the Trial Court erred by fully discarding the victim's testimony

Applying the "separation of grain from chaff" principle, the Court found the "nuggets of truth" in the corroboration between the victim and PWs 2 and 3 regarding Respondent No. 1's identity as the stabber

The Court noted that the injury was medically certified as "dangerous" and involved bowel perforation, making it impossible to be self-inflicted

The Court dismissed arguments regarding the lack of blood on the knife, noting it was recovered from a public park where it was thrown by intervenors

The severity and location of the blow demonstrated a clear intention to cause death, satisfyng Section 307 IPC

The Court held that Respondent No. 1, Ramesh, is guilty under Section 307 IPC

He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with a direction to surrender forthwith

The Court concluded that the victim's survival was due to the intervention of witnesses and medical treatment rather than a lack of murderous intent by the accused