Kanhai @ Kanhai Lal Manjhi @ Kanhaiya Lal ... vs State Of Jharkand on 4 July, 2011
In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the
case of Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkand reported in
AIR 2003 SC 854 wherein it is stated that the law of
evidence does not require any particular number of
witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However,
30
faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may
classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court
may classify the oral testimony into three categories,
namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii)
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first
two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or
discarding the testimony of the single witness. The
difficulty arises in the third category of case. The court
has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single
witness. These are all reliances which are required to be
referred in the instant case by revisiting the impugned
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court as
contended by learned HCGP for State whereby challenging
the acquittal judgment by urging various grounds.