It is only in a case where the grain and the chaff are so inextricably intertwined that in their separation no real evidence survives, that the whole evidence can be discarded A Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate 'truth' from 'falsehood' and sift the grain from the chaff in case of exaggerations. It is well said that to make a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill shall have to exist primarily. An exaggerated statement contains both truth and falsity, whereas a false statement has no grain of truth in it (being the 'opposite' of 'true').
There is, thus, a marked differentia between an 'exaggerated version' and a 'false version'. Similar is the explanation in other dictionaries as well.
Oxford Concise Dictionary states that "false" is "wrong not correct or true". On the other hand, Page | 18 Advance Law Lexicon defines "false" as "erroneous, untrue opposite of correct, or true". No exaggerated statement is possible without an element of truth. Every exaggeration, therefore, has the ingredients of 'truth'. These expressions unambiguously suggest that the genesis of an 'exaggerated statement' lies in a true fact, to which fictitious additions are made so as to make it more penetrative. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "enlarged or altered beyond normal proportions". Merriam Webster defines the term "exaggerate" as to "enlarge beyond bounds or the truth". Cambridge Dictionary defines "exaggeration" as "the fact of making something larger, more important, better or worse than it really is". It is vehemently contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is exaggerated and thus false. In appeal, the Court agreed with the State's contention that even in cases where a major portion of the evidence is found deficient, if the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, conviction can be based on it. However, three prosecution eyewitnesses, deposed that the first accused gave two axe blows on her head and then co accused also hit the deceased's left ear with an axe twice. According to the FIR, the deceased died owing to a single axe blow inflicted by the accused and the postmortem report also showed only one head injury on her person. In this case, the appellant-convicts contended that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses contained exaggerations and therefore it was wrong to convict him on the basis of such statements. A Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate 'truth' from 'falsehood' and sift the grain from the chaff in case of exaggerations", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed.
" To make a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill shall have to exist primarily. The Supreme Court observed that evidence given by a witness can not be discarded as a whole on the ground that it is exaggerated.
0 kommentar(er)
