Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 207 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Bachan Yadav vs Commandant, P.A.C. 20Th Batallion And ... on 25 September, 1997
21. Under the Indian Evidence Act no specific number of witnesses
are required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness
whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the
facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be
weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2)
CRIMES 63 (SC). Reliance can also be placed upon Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab, (P&H) 1995(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 475 wherein it was
observed that there is no rule of law making it obligatory for the prosecution
to examine witnesses of public as independent witnesses to corroborate
the statements of the police witnesses. The statements of the police
witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are the police
officials. There is no blanket bar upon the reliance and credibility of the
witnesses belonging to the police department. The Evidence Act does not
lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular
fact.
Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 5 May, 2009
22. Further it was observed in Jawahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 336 that Non-association of public witness at the time of
recovery is Not an infirmity sufficient to throw out the case of prosecution. It
was held :-
State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
(5) Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and equally bad witnesses
as any other witness and the testimony of police witnesses cannot be
rejected on the ground that they are official witnesses. (State of UP vs.
Anil Singh AIR 1998, Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696
and Sukhdev Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 86)
State Of U.P. vs Ballabh Das And Ors. on 2 August, 1985
Secondly, no question of the testimony of PW 2 & 4 being discarded
arises on account of they being brother of the complainant thus interested
witnesses. The law is fairly well settled that if the presence of the witness
at the spot is natural and consistent with the prosecution story then merely
because they were known to the complainant is no ground to reject their
testimony (State of UP vs. Ballabh Dass (SC) 1985 (2) R.C.R (Criminal)
1