[IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL]

1963  Present : Basnayake, C. J . (President),
Weerasooriya, S. P. ., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.

THE QUEEN v. V. P. JULIS and two others

Appeals Nos. 253 to 255, with Applications Nos. 264 to 266 of 1961

S. C. 123-M. C. Gampaha, 51787 /A

    1. Evidence-Identification parade-Witness's former statement relating to identi­fication of accused-Admissibility at trial-" Authority legally competent to investigate the fact "-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 9, 155, 157.

 Under section 157 of the Evidence Ordinance a former statement made by a witness identifying an accused at an identification parade is relevant as corroboration of any evidence to the like effect given by the witness at the trial of the accused, provided that the statement was made before " an authority legally competent to investigate the fact " other than an officer investigating under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A person who is delegated by a Magistrate to hold an identification parade is not " an authority legally competent to investigate the fact " within the meaning of section 157 of the Evidence Ordinance.

2. Evidence-False evidence given by witness on a material point-Can the rest of his evidence be accepted as true ?-Applicability of maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

In a prosecution for robbery and certain other offences, the only evidence against the 1st, 4th and 5th accused was that of two alleged eye-witnesses who stated that the three accused took part in the robbery. At the conclusion of the evidence of the first eye-witness, and before the second eye-witness was called, Crown Counsel applied under section 217 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw the indictment against the 1st accused on the ground that the evidence of these two witnesses (father and son) as to what the 1st accused did could not be accepted as true because they failed to mention his name to any of the neighbours who turned up after the robbery as one of those who took part in the robbery, and also because the first witness had a motive for falsely implicating the 1st accused. The application of Crown Counsel was allowed by the trial Judge and the 1st accused was discharged.

Held, that, by falsely implicating the 1st accused, the two witnesses gave false evidence on a material point. Applying the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (He who speaks falsely on one point will speak falsely upon all), their evidence implicating the 4th and 5th accused should also be rejected. When such evidence is given by witnesses, the question whether other portions of their evidence can be accepted as true should not be resolved in their favour unless there is some compelling reason for doing so.

3. Inspection of scene of offence by Judge and Jury-Procedure-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 231 to 233, 235 to 238-Courts Ordinance, ss. 53, 85. After all the evidence led for the prosecution and the defence was concluded there was an inspection of the scene of offence and other material places by the Jury in the presence of the Judge and Counsel. During the inspection, the witnesses pointed out various objects and places and demonstrated how certain incidents, including the identification parade, took place,

Held, by WEERASOORIYA, S. P J., and H. N. G. FERNANDO, J. (BASNAYAKE, C. J. dissenting), that there was no legal objection to the Jury having been shown the various places, objects and matters. The only irregularity of which any notice could be taken was that the questions put to the witnesses and the replies they gave took the form of evidence recorded at the inspection, instead of the witnesses being re-called in Court after the inspection was concluded and their evidence recorded as to what took place at the inspection, which is the procedure normally adopted. Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise the recording of evidence at the scene of t