1. In criminal trials, the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. The duty of the court is to separate the grain from the chaff. The falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular does not ruin the case from beginning to end; such testimony may be disregarded, but it must not be treated as effaced or washed off from the record altogether.
2. Where witnesses have been cross-examined, contradicted and made hostile, the judge of fact must consider whether the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If credit is not completely shaken, the credit-worthy part may be accepted and acted upon with due caution. Only if the whole testimony is impugned and the witness stands totally discredited should evidence be discarded in toto, when truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed.
3. Normal discrepancies due to memory lapse or shock do not corrode credibility, whereas material discrepancies do. In assessing evidence, the court must look for inherent consistency and probability of narration. Corroboration is required on material particulars in cases where evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
4. The evidence of the prosecution stands established on material points, particularly that the incident where the victim was assaulted by the accused at 'Kainchi Mour' took place after both alighted from the bus together. Even if the hostile witness's claim of 7-8 other attackers is discarded as untrue, the finding that the accused assaulted the complainant remains unshaken and supported by corroborating evidence.
