Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Ram Bahadur Singh And Ors on 29 October, 2003
27. Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has committed manifest illegality in convicting the appellants on the basis of unreliable and doubtful evidence of the prosecution, therefore, the judgment and order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No.3, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.274 of 2004 (State vs. Ram Bahal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2000, under Sections 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced may not withstand the test of law and for the reasons stated above, is hereby set aside and the above criminal appeals preferred by the appellants namely Smt. Sona Devi, Ram Bahal and Smt. Prema Devi are allowed.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 1992
20. 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."
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."