Now, Radical Interpretation occurs only when the interpreter is able to understand the unknown language for which meaning of language is very important as the essence of language lies in understanding and its usage. But how can we account for the truthfulness of the sentences being uttered by the speaker? Or, how can we account for the validity of the interpretation itself? In order to answer this, Davidson accommodated ‘The Principle of Charity’, i.e., an assumption that the speaker’s utterances will be counted as true, in terms of his belief as well as his meaning. For the belief of the speaker and the meaning of the sentence incorporates the truthfulness of the sentences being uttered by the speaker. The underlying thought of this principle is the fact that given this Principle of Charity, it is generally assumed that the speaker’s utterances will be regarded as true and rational. Although even this assumption is guided by rationality (in broader context), however, the Principle of Charity also include the possibility of mistaken beliefs for its base is assumption only.The point is that The Principle of Charity cannot be sidelined if we are to adhere to Radical Interpretation, in Davidsonian context. This is so because the ‘concept of belief, desire, meaning and intentional action are defined by what the theory, the principle of charity, says about them.’23 But, even The Principle of Charity, which has been adopted as an across-the-board basis24, can be sorted out into two main principles – The Principle of Correspondence and The Principle of Coherence. The former principle takes into account the assumption of the truthfulness of the speaker’s utterance’s per se whereas, the latter principle takes into account ‘the principles governing attribution of attitudes to an agent and description of the agent’s behaviour so as to make the agent out to be by and large rational.