S. SUDERSHAN REDDY & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Testimony of a related witness can be relied upon if it is cogent and credible. Absence of source of light in FIR does not detract from identification evidence, especially when established during trial. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not accepted as a rule of law in India; courts must separate credible evidence from portions found deficient.

Parties: Appellants: S. Sudershan Reddy & Ors.; Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 20 July 2006
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction and Sentence
Legal Topics: Evidence, Credibility of Related Witness, FIR Contents, Identification in Low Light, Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Maxim

Criminal Law Evidence Credibility of Related Witness FIR Contents Identification in Low Light Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Maxim

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

S. Sudershan Reddy & Ors.

Appellants

State of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Affirming Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Should testimony of a related witness be relied upon for conviction under circumstances where other alleged eyewitnesses do not fully support the prosecution?
2 Does non-mention of source of light in the FIR affect the credibility of the identification evidence?
3 Is the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in Indian criminal trials?