REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KARTIK MALHAR Appellant

V/S

STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PEDDIREDDY SUBBAREDDI V. STATE OF A.P. [FOLLOWED]
RAMRATAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [FOLLOWED]
VADIVELU THEVAR CHINNIAH SERVAI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [FOLLOWED]
GULI CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [FOLLOWED]
BADRI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [FOLLOWED]
VAHULA BHUSHAN ALIAS VAHUNA KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [FOLLOWED]
BRIJBASILAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [FOLLOWED]
JAYARAM SHIVA TAGORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [FOLLOWED]
JAI PRAKASH VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [FOLLOWED]
JAGDISH PRASAD OTHERS BAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [FOLLOWED]
ANIL PHUKAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [FOLLOWED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. MANOJ KUMAR:MANOJ KUMAR [FOLLOWED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The well-known maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted" has been given statutory placement in Section 134 of the Evidence Act which provides as under:- "134. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."

(3.) This section marks a departure from the English Law where a number of statutes stilt prohibit convictions for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness. This difference was noticed by the Privy Council in Mohamed Sunal Esa Mamasn Rer Alalah vs. The King, AIR 1946 PC 3) wherein it was laid down as under :

Click here to view full judgment.

KARTIK MALHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address