Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 1992
Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). It was held that as a general rule the 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on 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."
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lallu Manjhi & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2003
In Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 854 Hon,ble Supreme Court held that "The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the 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 cases. 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."
State Of Gujarat & 2 vs G P Varia & 8 on 3 March, 2017
In State of Gujarat vs J.P Varu reported in 2016 Cr.L.J 4185 (Supreme Court) it has been propounded by the Supreme Court that, the burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
State Of U.P. vs Sanjay Mishra on 3 April, 2017
The instant application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the State to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 240/2011 State Vs. Sanjay Mishra arising out of Case Crime No. 1498 of 2008, under Sections 308, 323, 452 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby the opposite party/ accused- Sanjay Mishra was acquitted of all the charges.
1