In CRA-S-2093-SB-2005(O&M)-PUNJ HC- Maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ (false in part, false in whole), is not made applicable by Courts in India, rules P&H HC while reiterating that version of hostile witness is not to be rejected outrightly
Justice H. S. Madaan [17-08-2022]

Read Order: Vyas Verma v. The State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 6, 2022:While dealing with an appeal against conviction in a case wherein the injured witness turned hostile,  the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the version of even a hostile witness is not to be rejected outrightly, rather it is to be analysed so as to separate the grain from the chaff i.e. truth from the falsehood and then Court can rely upon the parts of the statements, which are found to be truthful. 

“The maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ i.e. false in part, false in whole is not made applicable by the Courts in India”, held Justice H. S. Madaan. 

The complainant Ajay Kumar was working as a gas welder in a factory where Rajesh Kumar (injured) was working as a Foreman while Vyas Verma (accused) was working as a bridging welder. Under the influence of liquor, Rajesh started abusing Vyas Verma who later gave him (Rajesh) a knife blow on his neck and ran away along with his baggage. Rajesh was shifted to a hospital for treatment by the complainant who also informed the factory owner and the Police of this occurrence. 

An FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. This left him aggrieved and he filed the present appeal. 

It is to be noted that during the trial, the injured (Rajesh Kumar) did not support the prosecution's story with regard to the accused having caused injuries to him and he was declared a hostile witness at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, who was allowed to put questions to him in the form of cross-examination, which opportunity was availed of by the State counsel.

It was observed by the Court that the complainant fully supported the prosecution story as regards the accused having attacked victim Rajesh with a knife in the early morning hours causing him injuries on the neck. And that it was he (complainant), who had set the criminal machinery in motion by reporting the matter to the police giving precise details of the incident, in which the accused was specifically named. 

Since the complainant was working in the factory on the premises of which the incident took place, therefore, his presence on the spot at the relevant time was found by the Court to be natural and probable. No enmity between him and the accused was found. Thus, the Court found the version given by the complainant to be truthful and worthy of reliance as, on being cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused, he stuck to his guns and could not be shattered on any material point. 

Further, the Court expressed its surprise at the factum of the accused turning hostile, as he categorically stated before the police that it was the accused, who had caused injuries to him with a knife, though while appearing in the Court, he resiled from his statement.

In this regard, the Court opined, “Some human beings out of fear, inducement or greed go on to conceal the truth and tell lies and the injured in this case also come out to be of that type. But the Court is to remain vigilant and not to take the version of such a type of person as gospel's truth.”

The Bench also held, “The law is well settled on the point that version of even a hostile witness is not to be rejected outrightly, rather it is to be analysed so as to separate the grain from the chaff i.e. truth from the falsehood and then Court can rely upon the parts of the statements, which are found to be truthful. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus i.e. false in part, false in whole is not made applicable by the Courts in India.”

Also, the Court observed that the deposition of the complainant was duly corroborated by the medical evidence.  Accordingly, the judgement of conviction and order of sentence were upheld whereas the appeal was found to be without any merit and the same was dismissed.