On 12 October 2020, the Supreme Court consisted of Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Anirudh Bose, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. In the case of Inderjit Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Amar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court Justice is of the opinion that any legal constraint to convict another person on the testimony of one person Is not. He also said that the Evidence should be weighed and not counted.
The Honorable Supreme Court has said that:
” There is no legal impediment to convict a person on the basis of the testimony of a single person. This is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there is any doubt about the testimony of the person who is testifying in court, then the court will insist on the board. It is not a number or quantity but a quality that is physical.
The time-honored theory states that evidence should be weighed and not counted. There is a clear imprint of section 138 of the Evidence Act of this Siddhant Bhavan. The test is whether the evidence that is there is truth in it has a ring of truth in it and whether the evidence is solid, reliable, reliable or there is some doubt or they are unbelievable. “ It is one of the top legal decisions in India.
These two appeals are directed against the adjudicated judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 Dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the High Court, passed by 1. The appellants challenge the order of conviction against them, thereby giving the appellant the Section 302 IPC R / W Section 34 convicted under IPC.
One of the accused- the appellant, Indrajit Singh, has been convicted under Section 27 and punished by the Arms Act and fine and life imprisonment for Rs.5,000 / – each, for undergoing simple imprisonment for 3 months. Default of.
Click to read the full judgment of this case: