Doctrine  - falsus   in uno, falsus in omnibus - The  doctrine  of  falsus   in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means “false in one thing, false in everything” has been held to be inapplicable in the Indian scenario, where the tendency to exaggerate is common -  Words and phrases. (2018)2 SC eJournal 1390

Witness – Evidence - It is a well settled position of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments  or  exaggerations -  It is not uncommon for witnesses to make exaggerations during the course of evidence - But merely because there are certain exaggerations, improvements and embellishments, the entire prosecution story should not be doubted - Moreover, minor variations in the evidence will not affect the root of the matter, inasmuch as such minor variations need not be given major importance, inasmuch as they would not materially alter the evidence/credibility of the eye witnesses as a whole - Criminal Trial.  (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab(1974) 4 SCC 552).   (2018)2 SCeJournal 1390

Criminal trial - Evidence Act, S. 33 -  In Sessions Case No. X , no evidence was recorded independently -  On the other hand, the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. Y was marked as evidence in Sessions Case No. X- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not permit such a mode of proof of any fact barring in exceptional situations contemplated in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. DOWNLOAD

Witness – Evidence - It is a well settled position of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments  or  exaggerations -  It is not uncommon for witnesses to make exaggerations during the course of evidence - But merely because there are certain exaggerations, improvements and embellishments, the entire prosecution story should not be doubted - Moreover, minor variations in the evidence will not affect the root of the matter, inasmuch as such minor variations need not be given major importance, inasmuch as they would not materially alter the evidence/credibility of the eye witnesses as a whole - Criminal Trial.  (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 4 SCC 552).   (2018)2 SCeJournal 1390

Criminal trial - Evidence Act, S. 33 -  In Sessions Case No. X , no evidence was recorded independently -  On the other hand, the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. Y was marked as evidence in Sessions Case No. X- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not permit such a mode of proof of any fact barring in exceptional situations contemplated in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. (2018)2 SCeJ 1183 DOWNLOAD