https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288881 Direct eyewitness testimony that the appellant quarrelled with the deceased, obtained a knife and stabbed him was accepted as sufficient to sustain conviction for murder. The Court held that a co-accused's first information report was not substantive evidence and could not be used against the appellant. It also reiterated that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution in India, so disbelief of witnesses against a co-accused did not require rejection of their evidence in toto. The prosecution still bore the burden of proving guilt, and the presumption of innocence could not be displaced by shifting that burden to the accused. On review, the High Court's preference for the prosecution version was upheld. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288881 Direct eyewitness testimony that the appellant quarrelled with the deceased, obtained a knife and stabbed him was accepted as sufficient to sustain conviction for murder. The Court held that a co-accused's first information report was not substantive evidence and could not be used against the appellant. It also reiterated that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution in India, so disbelief of witnesses against a co-accused did not require rejection of their evidence in toto. The prosecution still bore the burden of proving guilt, and the presumption of innocence could not be displaced by shifting that burden to the accused. On review, the High Court's preference for the prosecution version was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288881