Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus Not Applicable in Criminal Law: Patna High Court

Sole Testimony of Minor Victim Enough to Convict Main Accused for Rape, In a detailed and significant ruling Patna High Court partially allowed a set of criminal appeals filed by three men convicted for gang rape and attempt to murder of a 16-year-old minor girl in rural Saharsa, Bihar. A division bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman, while upholding the principle that “the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy, can be the basis of conviction”, held that only one of the three accused — Bijali Yadav — could be found guilty of penetrative sexual assault.

However, the Court acquitted the other two accused — Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah — of rape charges under Section 376(g) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, due to inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. Despite this, all three were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC (attempt to murder), with the Court noting their “common intention to kill the victim after she disclosed their identity.”

Victim’s Credibility Affirmed Despite Discrepancies: “Her Testimony Is Natural, Consistent, And Supported By Medical Evidence”

Referring to well-established jurisprudence, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019) 16 SCC 759 and Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the Court held:

“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence... Minor contradictions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix.”

The Court emphasized that victims of sexual assault are not accomplices, and their statements deserve to be treated at par with injured witnesses, especially where medical evidence corroborates the allegations, as it did in this case.

The victim, in her fard beyan (first statement), accused only Bijali Yadav of committing rape, stating that Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah held her hands while Bijali assaulted her. However, in her Section 164 CrPC statement and later testimony, she claimed that all three raped her one after another.

Despite this discrepancy, the Court did not discard her testimony entirely. Instead, it invoked the principle that courts must “sift grain from chaff” and held:

“The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to criminal cases... Therefore, while her later statement implicating the other two was inconsistent, her consistent claim against Bijali Yadav, along with medical and ocular corroboration, proves his guilt under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.”

Attempt to Murder Charge Sustained: “The Accused Tried To Kill Her To Silence Her”

All three accused were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court found that after the victim identified them, the accused assaulted her with intent to kill, inflicting serious injuries corroborated by the medical officer’s testimony:

“There was swelling and hemorrhage on both eyes, bruises on the face, abrasion and scratch marks on the neck. These injuries were serious enough to suggest a clear intent to murder.”

The bench observed: “From the statement of the appellants, followed by serious physical assault, intention of all three appellants in committing murder is proved.”

On Evidence and Identification: Court Rejects Technical Objections Raised by Defence

The defence had raised several objections including:

• The torch used by the victim to identify the accused was not seized by the police;

• The clothes and mobile phone allegedly left behind by the accused were not properly proven;

• There were delays in medical examination and lack of DNA evidence.

Rejecting these, the Court held: “The accused were known villagers. Their identification was confirmed in cross-examination itself. The recovery of clothing, though not decisive, supports the chain of events. The medical evidence is conclusive and consistent.”

Sentences Modified: Life Sentence Set Aside, Minimum Sentences Imposed

While the trial court had imposed life imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO, the High Court modified the sentence in view of several mitigating factors, including the young age, first offence, and lack of prior criminal record of the convicts.

Final Sentences:

• Bijali Yadav:

  • 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 POCSO Act

  • 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC

  • Total Fine: ₹75,000 (₹50,000 + ₹25,000); default sentences to run consecutively.

• Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah:

  • Acquitted of rape charges under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(g) IPC.

  • Convicted under Section 307/34 IPC.

  • 7 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹25,000 fine each, in default six months additional imprisonment.

The Court declined to award separate sentences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, citing that the major convictions covered the gravity of the offence.

A Judicious Balance Between Victim-Centric Justice and Accused Rights

The Patna High Court's judgment in this case is a nuanced affirmation of victim-centric jurisprudence, while also ensuring that innocent persons are not wrongfully convicted due to inconsistencies that arise in trauma-laden testimonies.

“It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff,” the bench concluded, ensuring justice was delivered not by rejecting the entire case for discrepancies, but by holding each accused accountable to the extent proved.

Date of Decision: 12 December 2025