Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
Nemo debut bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
Lentis Legalis | 22 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
“Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” means that no person should be punished twice for the same offence. It is a fundamental principle of natural law that underlies the doctrine of double jeopardy.
Applicability of the legal maxim in Indian law
1. Constitution of India
Article 20 of the Constitution of India embodies fundamental protections under the heading “Protection in respect of conviction for offences.” It guarantees certain essential rights in criminal proceedings, including protection against ex post facto (retrospective) punishment, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. At this instance Article 20(2) which deals with the principle of double jeopardy and gives the maxim a constitutional recognition is of great relevance in the context and its applicability.
Article – 20(2): No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
2. Section – 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, gives statutory recognition to the doctrine of double jeopardy, which is rooted in the well-established maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa—no person ought to be vexed or tried twice for the same cause. The provision mandates that once a person has been tried by a competent court and either convicted or acquitted, such person shall not be tried again for the same offence or on the same set of facts for any other offence that could have been charged in the earlier trial.
Thus, Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 337 BNSS operationalize this fundamental principle by ensuring finality in criminal proceedings and protecting individuals from repeated prosecutions, harassment, and abuse of the judicial process. At the same time, it carefully carves out limited exceptions, such as where new consequences arise or where the previous court lacked jurisdiction, thereby balancing the rights of the accused in the interests of justice.
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: Rule of Law or Rule of Caution?
Lentis Legalis | 22 March 2026
Reviewed by Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, meaning “false in one thing, false in everything,” suggests that if a witness is found to have made a false statement on a material point, their entire testimony should be discarded. In its strict form, the doctrine implies that once a witness is proved untruthful in any part, it becomes desirable to reject the whole of their evidence, and consequently, the prosecution case built upon it.
The doctrine originated in the common law system, tracing back to the late seventeenth century. At one point, it operated as a mandatory presumption that a witness who had lied in any respect was wholly unreliable. However, by the nineteenth century, English courts began to dilute this rigidity, holding that the maxim should not be applied as an inflexible rule of law, but rather as a rule of caution. Courts were advised to assess evidence carefully, separating truth from falsehood instead of discarding the entire testimony outright.
Status of the Maxim in India:
Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end.
Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of the rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence.’
Important Cases on the Point:
Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa, 2002
Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 : 1957 Cri LJ 550]
Author
Adv. Chandrasen Yadav
B.Sc., LL.B. & LL.M.
From Self-Identification to State Certification: A Step Back for Transgender Rights?
No More ‘Bona Fide Need’: Allahabad High Court Redefines Eviction Standards Under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021
Doctrine of Casus Omissus: Limits of Judicial Interpretation.
Supreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
Major Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
Supreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
Supreme Court Highlights2 months agoSupreme Court to Hear Review Petition on 10 February 2026 Challenging Mandatory Three-Year Practice Requirement for Entry-Level Judicial Services
-
Landmark judgements2 months agoMajor Relief for Law Students as Supreme Court Opens Review on Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule
-
Landmark judgements2 months agoSupreme Court Mandates Free Sanitary Pads, Functional Toilets and Menstrual Hygiene Infrastructure in All Schools
-
High Court Updates3 months agoAccessing Wife’s Private Photos Without Consent and Humiliating Her Before Family Amounts to Mental Cruelty
-
High Court Updates2 months agoSurge in Police Encounters in UP: Allahabad High Court Seeks Compliance with PUCL Guidelines
-
Crime And Justice2 months agoPre-Trial Detention, Human Rights, and the rejection of Bail of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
-
Supreme Court Highlights2 months agoSupreme Court Keeps UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Raises Concerns Over Ambiguity and Possible Misuse
-
Opinions & Columns9 months agoSchool Merger in Uttar Pradesh: A Stark Reflection of State Abdication of Educational Duty Undermining the Constitutional Mandate of Article 21-A and the RTE Act, 2009.