Statues & Precedence Cases

• Accused Indicted under the Section 54A(d) of the

Opium, Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance for
being in possession of 9.91 grams of Heroin in the High
Court.

• Due to the solitary main witness who also take part in

the arrest of the accused Section 134 of the Evidence
Ordinance was drew to the attention.
Precedence Cases
Section 134 of the Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act SL Evidence Ordinance
Reference Cases Facts Taken
 Manoj Bahu v. State of Maharastra 1993 (3) Bom. CR  Investigating officer’s statement, if trustworthy &
673 reliable, court can be relied upon
 State Vs. Bhikambhai Kalidas 1985 (2) GLR 74  The credibility of public officers should not be
 State v. Raghunath Baxi 1985 Gij LR (SC) doubted on mere suspicion and without acceptable
 State of Uttar Pradesh v.Dr.G.K Gosh 1983 2 Crimes (SC) evidence.
 Shyam Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar 1993 Cr.LJ 772
 State of Gujarat v. Raghunath AIR 1985 SC 1092  The evidence of witnesses cannot be judged on the
 Banshidar Maharana v. State of Bihar 1993 1Pat LJR 31 basis of their being officials.
 Lila Krishnana v. Mani Ram Godara AIR 1985 SC 1073  Court cannot reject the evidence of witnesses,
 Karamajith Singh v. State (Delhi Admin) AIR 2003 SC merely because they are government servants.
1311
 The evidence of an official witness has to be
 State of Maharastra v. Gopal Amrut (1989) 3 Bom CR
weighed in the same scale as any other testimony.
464
 Dharman v. NC Sirinivasan AIR 1990 Mad.14 (1989)
 Ajith Singh v. Sate of Punjab 1982 Cr.L J 522
Precedence Cases
Reference Cases
 King Vs. Chalo Singho 42 NLR 269
 Walimunige John Vs. State 76 NLR 488
Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras SIR S C 614
R Vs. Arnough (1973) 21 WIR CA of Jamaica
[Classical Example: Police Officer (witness) asked
a third party to obtain some cannabis for him]
Lyris Silva Vs. Karunaratne 48 NLR 310
[Price Control Inspector Case]
Facts Taken
A prosecutor is not bound to call all the witnesses on the indictment
or to tender them for cross-examination but in exceptional
circumstances, a judge might interfere to ask him to call all the
witness
One credible witness is greater than the testimony of a number of
other witnesses of indifferent character unless the witness itself
requires rule of impudence (Eg. If the sole witness is a child)
Though the sole witness is acted illegally but he is not an accomplice
& The court held that his evidence was admissible and did not
require corroboration/justification.
The witness (Decoy / Trap) cannot be regarded as an accomplice.
While his evidence does not need corroboration nevertheless, it
must be probed and accepted with great caution