AIROnline 2003 SC 153 ::(2003) 9 Scale 179 ::(2004) 2 Raj Cri C 575 ::2004 (10) SCC 443 ::(2004) 1 Rec Cri R 224 ::(2003) 12 All Ind Cas 45 (SC) ::2004 (48) All Cri C 9 ::2004 (2) Chand LR (Civ & Cri) 346 ::2004 (13) Ind LD 794 ::2004 (1) SRJ 250 ::2004 (1) East Cri C 26 ::2004 (1) BLJR 41 ::2004 (1) All Cri Rul 388 ::2004 (1) All Cri LR 790 ::2004 (1) ALD (Cri) 35 ::2003 (7) Supreme 775 ::2003 (6) SLT 656 ::2003 (4) JLJR 153 ::2003 (4) Cur Cri R 281 ::2003 (3) Chand Cri C 310 ::(2004) 1 ALD(CRL) 35 ::2004 BLJR 1 41 ::2004 BLJR 41 ::(2003) 4 Crimes 429 ::(2003) 4 Pat LJR 239 ::2004 All MR (Cri) 581 ::(2003) 12 AllIndCas 45 ::(2003) 8 JT 508 (SC) ::(2003) 8 JT 508

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Relative witness - Credibility - Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - A relation or a friend would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. (Para 5 6) (B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Falsus in uno falsus in omni bus - Maxim not applicable in India - Witnesses cannot be branded as liar - Major portion of evidence is deficient - Can be ground to know entire prosecution case. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not re....