Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.41 seconds)Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr vs State Of Assam on 15 September, 2010
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered in Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10
SCC 374 :
Sunil Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2003
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment
rendered in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 at paragraph 9 held as under:
Surendra Paswan vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2003
56. The same view was expressed by this Court in Surendra
Paswan v. State of Jharkhand. In that case the investigating
officer had not sent the blood samples collected from the spot
for chemical examination. This Court held that merely because
the sample was not so sent may constitute a deficiency in the
investigation but the same did not corrode the evidentiary value
of the eyewitnesses.
Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr on 15 March, 2012
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in
the case of Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722,
wherein it has been held as under:
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010
Position of law is well settled that the testimony of
sole eye witness can be the basis of conviction, as has
been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin
Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91 held
as under:
Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2007
In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra this Court reiterated the
similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity
of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and
quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or
plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court
to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record
conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of
testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the
quality of evidence.