Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.72 seconds)Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2010
"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to
prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It
is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu
Thevar and Anr. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @
Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin
Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh
and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan
Chand v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504).
Mahesh & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2011
"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to
prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It
is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu
Thevar and Anr. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @
Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin
Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh
and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan
Chand v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504).
Prithipal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc on 4 November, 2011
"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to
prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It
is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu
Thevar and Anr. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @
Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin
Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh
and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan
Chand v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504).
Kishan Chand vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2012
"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to
prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It
is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu
Thevar and Anr. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @
Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin
Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh
and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan
Chand v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504).
Vijay And Anr. vs State And Anr. [Along With Crl. M.C. ... on 28 February, 2008
In 'Vijay & Anr. vs. State', Crl. A. No. 83/2000' decided on
15.09.2015, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
Inder Singh & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 January, 2015
"59.....It is well settled that the testimony of a witness, who is
himself injured in the incident about which he deposes comes with
an inbuilt assurance as to his presence at the scene of crime also
for the reason he is unlikely to spare the actual assailants in order to
falsely implicate someone else [Inder Singh & Ors. V. State of
Rajasthan 2015 (2) SCC (Cri.)