MOHAMMAD AMANAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have beard the learned counsel for the applicant at some length and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision on the ground that material evidence of Km. Mariju, who accompanied Km. Meena to the house of the accused, has not been considered as she was not produced by the prosecution. Km. Manju was not the only witness who could unfold the prosecution story. The victim Km. Meena, has unfolded the prosecution story in detail.

(3.) ANOTHER argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the courts below ought not have acted upon the single testimony of Km. Meena. It differs from case to case where single testimony of a witness should or should not be believed. In the instant case, both the courts below have placed reliance on the single testimony of Km. Meena.