Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. In the case of Seeman v. State the Apex court had observed that 'The prosecution's non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement.'

24. This argument was also addressed before the trial court and the trial Judge after rummaging through the various decisions on the point converged to a categorical conclusion that merely because other witnesses had not been examined would not emasculate the prosecution case. The learned trial Judge observed that the witnesses examined were injured and therefore their presence on the spot cannot be brought within the domain of doubt we are in full agreement with the reasons assigned for repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons on this point. Therefore the arguments advanced across the bar on this point by learned Counsel for the appellant being devoid of substance, falls short of acceptability.