speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of
M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751: 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed:
[SCC p. 756, para 8: SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8]
‘8. … This Court has held that falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the
reason that hardly one comes across a witness
whose evidence does not contain a grain of
untruth or at any rate exaggeration,
embroideries or embellishments. In most
cases, the witnesses when asked about details
venture to give some answer, not necessarily
true or relevant for fear that their evidence
may not be accepted in respect of the main
P a g e | 28
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20630 )
incident which they have witnessed but that is
not to say that their evidence as to the salient
features of the case after cautious scrutiny
.
[ad_1]
Source link