KULDIP SINGH, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
Kartik Malhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
S. Saghir Ahamd, J. - 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 still prohibit convictions for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness. This difference was noticed by the Privy Council in Mohamad Sugal Esa Mamasan Fer Alslan v. The King1, wherein it was laid down as under:
“It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that assuming the unsworned evidence was admissible the court could not act upon it unless it was corroborated. In England, where provision has been made for the reception of unsworned evidence from a chi1d, it has always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particularly implicating the accused. But in the Indian Act there is no such provision and the evidence is made admissible whether corroborated or not. Once there is admissible evidence a court can act upon it; corroboration unless requir
followed : Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
Ramratan v. State of Rajasthan
Guli Chund v. State of Rajasthan
Vahula Bhushan v. State of T.N.
Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P.
State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar
Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Jayaram Shiva Tagore v. State of Maharashtra
Anil. Phukan v. State of Assam
followed : Gull Chaiid v. State of Rajasthan
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
Dalhir Kaur(Mst) v. Stall of Punjab
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.