Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.97 seconds)

Deep Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 17 October, 1969

In Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana16, this Court had observed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions of this country. This maxim does not occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a court may apply in the given set of circumstances.17 In 16 (1969) 3 SCC 890.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Ponnam Chandraiah vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor on 30 July, 2008

17 Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 11 SCC 640. Crl.A. Nos. 2623-2631 of 2014 & Ors. Page 17 of 40 cases where a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinise the rest of the evidence, sifting the grain from the chaff. The reliable evidence can be relied upon especially when the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact. The court must be diligent in separating truth from falsehood. Only in exceptional circumstances, when truth and falsehood are so inextricably connected as to make it indistinguishable, should the entire body of evidence be discarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next