Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 134 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 335 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 10 October, 2002
18.The contradictions pointed out by the defence are correct but the
question is whether minor contradictions can be allowed to dismantle
the whole prosecution case which is otherwise duly proved against the
accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
Gangadhar Behera and others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC
FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 12
381 has talked about the major and minor discrepancies in a criminal
trial. It was held that:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 January, 2008
21. It is the sole prerogative of the prosecution to examine as many as
witnesses to prove its case and it is the quality and not the quantity of
the witnesses which is material in a criminal trial. Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act says that no specific number of witnesses are
required to be examined in a case. A person can be convicted on the
sole testimony of a witness provided he is reliable and trustworthy. As
far as number of witness to be examined to prove the allegations
against the accused is concerned, this point has been deliberated over
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ramesh Krishna
Madhusudhan Naiyar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008
Supreme Court 927 has considered this argument and held as under: