Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India

"Appreciation of ocular evidence admits of no fixed formula. The testimony of a witness has to be considered as a whole to determine whether it bears the ring of truth... The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling delivered on August 19, 2026, held that minor discrepancies, lapses of memory, and marginal variations in the testimony of rustic witnesses cannot justify discarding otherwise credible ocular evidence, reiterating that the legal maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra observed that courts must not apply an "unduly sophisticated or hyper-technical standard of scrutiny" when evaluating the testimonies of rural and injured eyewitnesses.

Trial Court Convicted Accused For Murder And Assault

The appeal arose out of a September 9, 1988 judgment by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, convicting three accused under Sections 302, 307, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting Mamman Hussain to death and injuring two others with tabals and a lathi on December 18, 1985. The assault allegedly stemmed from a prior dispute regarding the elopement of a family member's wife. Following the death of appellants Asgar and Sabir during the pendency of the appeal, the proceedings abated against them, leaving the appeal to survive solely for appellant Jabir.

The primary questions before the High Court were whether minor inconsistencies in an injured eyewitness's testimony regarding the sequence of reporting and medical examination rendered the prosecution version untrustworthy, and whether the non-examination of an independent witness named in the First Information Report (FIR) proved fatal. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the absence of a proven motive and the lack of crime numbers on police reference letters diluted the applicability of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Standard Of Scrutiny For Rustic Eyewitnesses - No Fixed Formula For Appreciating Ocular Evidence

Addressing the defence contention that PW-1 gave inconsistent statements on whether the deceased was taken first to the police station or the hospital, the Bench emphasized that the appreciation of ocular evidence admits of no rigid formula. The judges noted that human memory is fallible and cannot reproduce an unexpected violent event with photographic precision.

The Court underscored that minor discrepancies, variations in narrative flow, errors in estimating time or sequence, and marginal omissions do not justify the rejection of substantially truthful evidence. This principle assumes special significance when witnesses hail from rural backgrounds, whose testimonies must be evaluated according to their normal behavioural and perceptive patterns rather than through hyper-technical lenses.

Maxim 'Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus' Inapplicable In India

The Bench reaffirmed that courts are fully empowered to separate the grain from the chaff, extracting reliable testimony from hyperbole or embellishment. The Court remarked that every inconsistency between a previous statement and court testimony does not amount to a fatal contradiction unless it materially shakes the core of the prosecution case.

The Court held that the prompt registration of the FIR at 6:15 p.m., the subsequent medical examination of the injured between 6:45 p.m. and 7:20 p.m. accompanied by a police constable, and the proved injury reports completely dispelled any allegation of the FIR being ante-timed or deliberated.

"The relevant question is whether the discrepancy is such as to render the testimony inherently improbable or materially affect its credibility... It is permissible to separate the reliable portion from exaggeration or embellishment and to consider whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to establish the charge."

"Where there is direct and reliable evidence connecting the accused with the occurrence, absence or weakness of motive ordinarily loses much of its significance."

Non-Examination Of Witnesses Not Fatal If Direct Evidence Is Convincing

Withholding Witnesses Does Not Automatically Create Adverse Inference

Dealing with the non-examination of Ahsan and other persons named in the FIR, the High Court clarified that non-production of a material witness is not by itself a ground to discard natural and trustworthy evidence. The Court observed that an adverse inference arises only where a withheld witness was crucial to explain the genesis of the crime or cure an existing lacuna.

Since PW-1 and PW-2 were themselves injured eyewitnesses whose direct testimonies firmly established the assault, the Court noted that Ahsan's testimony would have merely amounted to additional evidence. Consequently, his non-examination left no material gap in the prosecution case.

Motive Becomes Immaterial In The Face Of Direct Testimony - Direct Ocular Evidence Overrides Absence Of Specific Motive

On the defence plea that the prosecution failed to prove the motive of elopement, the High Court held that while motive assumes significance in circumstantial cases, it recedes into the background when direct ocular testimony is reliable. The prosecution is not bound to prove a precise motive once direct evidence proves the accused's guilt.

The Bench pointed out that independent of the elopement dispute, the evidence on record clearly showed a scuffle between the parties on the morning of the incident, accompanied by an open threat to teach the informant a lesson, establishing that the evening assault was not an unprovoked or isolated encounter.

Section 34 IPC Triggered By Joint Armed Participation - Common Intention Established Through Joint Assault On Vital Organs

Interpreting the scope of Section 34 IPC, the Court observed that joint liability requires active participation having a functional relationship with the offence charged. Merely being present is insufficient, but active, armed co-participation directly attracts vicarious criminal liability.

The Court found that all accused arrived together armed with lethal weapons like tabals and lathis, launched a simultaneous attack targeting vital body parts, extended the assault to an intervening woman, and fled together when challenged. These circumstances comprehensively established common intention to commit murder and attempt to murder.

Final Directions And Surrender Order

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and concurrent life sentences awarded to appellant Jabir under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34, and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Cancelling his bail bonds, the Court directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court on or before September 20, 2026, to serve out the remainder of his sentence, failing which coercive measures will be initiated.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2026