Magistrate, Hyderabad, at 5.00 p.m. on 08.03.1995, he did not complain to the concerned Magistrate about his alleged beating by the appellants. As a matter of fact, P.W.7 also stated that P.W.1 did not disclose about the alleged assault made on him by the police when questioned by the learned Magistrate. It is not the case of P.W.1 that he did not disclose about the police beating him in the lock-up of Humayun Nagar Police Station due to fear or threat given by the police. Further, Ex.P9-clinical summary discloses that he was assaulted by known persons on 07.03.1995. P.W.1 did not state that he was assaulted by the police. More over, P.W.1 asserted that he was beaten by known persons. There is no apparent reason for P.W.1 to suppress the alleged assault by the police either to the learned Magistrate or to the doctor when he was admitted in the hospital on two occasions. The trial Court gave a finding that P.Ws.1, 5 to 7 falsely deposed that Accused No.2 was abusing P.W.1 with reference to his caste. Similarly, the allegation of P.W.1 that the accused wrongfully confined him is nothing but falsehood. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.1 that Accused Nos.5 to 9 abused him in the name of his caste is false. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.1 that he suffered fractures is also false in view of the fact that there is no medical evidence. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.1 that Accused Nos.6 to 9 beat him is found to be false. In view of these false statements, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable. When the statement of P.W.1 consists of two parts, one part appears to be false and the other part appears to be correct, that part of the statement which appears to be true and correct can be accepted, because the latin maxim “Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus” has no application.
