Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Latin: False in one thing, false in everything.
Also called: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
False in one thing, false in everything. In India it is not a rule of law; at most it is a rule of caution, and courts separate the true part of testimony from the false.
Explained
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus means that a witness who is false in one matter is to be disbelieved in all. Under the maxim, a single falsehood would justify rejecting the whole of a witness's evidence.
Indian courts do not accept the maxim as a rule of law. The Supreme Court, notably in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002), has described it as at best a rule of caution, which has not received general acceptance in India and which courts are not bound to apply. The reason is practical: witnesses in Indian trials often add embellishments or exaggerations to a true account, and rejecting the entire testimony on that ground would let the guilty escape. The court's duty is to separate the grain from the chaff, accepting the part found true and rejecting the part found false.
The approach has limits. Where the truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed that they cannot be separated, or where the falsehood goes to the root of the case, the court may reject the evidence as a whole. Each case depends on how far the falsehood affects the core of the testimony.
The same reasoning supports the rule that the evidence of a hostile witness is not wiped out. Where a party is permitted under Section 157 of the BSA to put questions to its own witness as in cross-examination, the parts of that witness's evidence found reliable can still be used. Examiners usually ask whether the maxim applies in India, and the expected answer is that it is not a rule of law but only a rule of caution.
Example
For example, if an eyewitness truthfully describes the assault but falsely claims to have seen the accused buy the weapon a day earlier, the court may reject the second claim and still act on the first.
For the exam
- Meaning: false in one thing, false in everything.
- Not a rule of law in India; at most a rule of caution.
- Courts separate the grain from the chaff (Gangadhar Behera, 2002).
- Evidence may be rejected wholly only if truth and falsehood cannot be separated.
- Reliable parts of a hostile witness's evidence remain usable.
11 questions in the Law Maker question bank use this maxim. Practise Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence questions
Related terms
- EvidenceUnder Section 2(1)(e) of the BSA, statements of witnesses before the Court, including those given electronically (oral evidence), and documents, including digital records, produced for its inspection (documentary evidence).
- FactAnything, state of things or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses, and any mental condition of which a person is conscious (Section 2(1)(f) of the BSA).
- Res gestaeFacts, including statements, so connected with a fact in issue or relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether at the same time and place or not (Section 4, BSA).
- AlibiA defence plea that the accused was at another place when the offence was committed, so that he could not have committed it. Relevant under Section 9 of the BSA; the burden is on the accused.
- Corpus delictiThe substance of an offence: proof that the crime charged was in fact committed by someone. In homicide it is often equated with the dead body, but its recovery is not essential to a conviction.
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.