Partial Acquittal Of Co-Accused Does Not Vitiate Conviction Of Others If Testimony Is Found Reliable: Allahabad High Court

"The doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution." Allahabad High Court, in a judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, held that the acquittal of certain co-accused on the same evidence does not preclude the court from convicting other accused persons, provided the testimony against them is found to be independently reliable and trustworthy.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is not a mandatory rule of evidence in India but merely a rule of caution.

The appeal arose from a 1984 incident in District Bareilly where a dispute over water from a public hand pump escalated into a fatal shooting. The trial court had convicted Hari Ram and Man Singh for murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, while acquitting two other co-accused, Chhadammi and Nanku, giving them the benefit of doubt. During the pendency of the appeal, Hari Ram passed away, leaving only the appeal of Man Singh for adjudication.

The primary question before the court was whether the acquittal of two co-accused on the same prosecution evidence necessitates the acquittal of the remaining appellants. Additionally, the court examined whether the testimony of family members and related witnesses, specifically an injured eyewitness, could be accepted in the absence of independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the surviving appellant.

The court reaffirmed the settled legal position that being a relative of the deceased or victim is not a ground to reject the evidence of a witness, provided it is credible. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Thatireddigari Maheshwara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the bench held that "related" is not synonymous with "interested."

Reliability of Injured Eyewitness Testimony

The court emphasized that the evidence of an injured eyewitness carries a special evidentiary value and cannot be discarded on flimsy grounds. Since the witness Ram Swaroop (PW-2) sustained two firearm injuries during the incident, his presence at the scene was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that his testimony was consistent with the medical evidence provided by Dr. C.P. Singhal (PW-5).

Doctrine of Falsus In Uno Falsus In Omnibus

Addressing the appellant's contention that the acquittal of co-accused should lead to a total rejection of the prosecution's case, the court invoked Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It held that if some accused are acquitted because the court found the evidence against them shaky, it does not mean the evidence against the convicted accused, which is otherwise trustworthy, must be discarded. The court reiterated that the doctrine is merely a rule of caution and not a mandatory rule of law.

Evidence of Pre-concert and Common Intention

The court observed that the conduct of the accused, who left the scene after an altercation only to return armed with guns to fire indiscriminately at the victims, clearly established a pre-planned common intention. By triggering Section 34 IPC, the court concluded that the trial court was justified in its conviction based on the overt acts performed by the appellants.

Finding the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be "wholly reliable and trustworthy" and noting that it found robust corroboration in the medical post-mortem and injury reports, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The surviving appellant, Man Singh, was directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within one month to serve out the remaining sentence.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026