Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
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.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sheelam Ramesh And Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 1999
58. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P.,
(1999) 8 SCC 369 in Para -18 held as follows:-
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 May, 1983
65. However, in the aforesaid context this court is conscious with the settled
position of law that minor discrepancy cannot vitiate the prosecution
story, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat [(1983) 3 SCC 217], in
particular at paragraph nos. 5 which reads as under: