Sunil Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2003
16. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367, where it was held:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
9. Vadivelu Thevar's case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of
Jagdish Prasad and others vs. State of M.P. 1994 AIR(SC) 1251 ). This Court held
that as a general rule to court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness
provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person
on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the In-
dian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts about
the testimony the courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon
the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is
material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The
test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or
otherwise.
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 1992
9. Vadivelu Thevar's case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of
Jagdish Prasad and others vs. State of M.P. 1994 AIR(SC) 1251 ). This Court held
that as a general rule to court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness
provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person
on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the In-
dian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts about
the testimony the courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon
the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is
material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The
test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or
otherwise.
Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 July, 2022
17. Furthermore, the principles to be applied while appreciating the testimony of an
ocular witness has been summarized in the recent pronouncement of Apex Court
in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra (2022
SCC OnLine SC 883), as follows:
Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 29 March, 2005
In light of the above-discussed discrep-
ancies in the testimony of PW-1, the same is a serious infirmity in the case of the
prosecution, Reliance in this regard is placed on Hem Raj & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana 2005 AIR (SC) 2110:
Keki Hormusji Gharda & Ors vs Mehervan Rustom Irani & Anr on 13 May, 2009
26. The word "voluntary" is significant. As observed in Keki Hormusji Gharda v.
Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475 the same connotes that obstruction
should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement
of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to
cause obstruction.
S. L. Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 1972
30. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972
CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
1