Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Absentee statement in State vs . Mahipal Singh & Ors. on 13 July, 2018Matching Fragments
14. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (2003) 2 SCC, 401 has held that "conviction can be based upon the testimony of sole witness if it is found completely reliable".
15. Testimonies of DW1 & DW3 cannot be read into evidence as they were dropped by the accused persons in the middle of their examination in chief and defence evidence was closed by the accused persons. DW2 N.S.Arora in his examination in chief had deposed that as per his knowledge accused Mahipal Singh was very submissive, sincere, hardworking & honest throughout and complainant never made any complaint of any kind of misbehavior against the accused Mahipal or any of the accused persons and in his cross examination, he denied that letter pertaining to disciplinary action were not marked to him. However, on confronting him with Ex. DW2/A , Ex DW2/B , Ex DW2/C and Ex DW2/D, witness had admitted that these were the letters regarding their disciplinary issues and were marked to him. He had also admitted that issues stated in the above said letters were regarding indiscipline of staff by playing of card in the office, absentee statement, harassment complaints by the ladies employee including present complainant. This cast shadow of doubt on the veracity of DW2.