New Delhi, Mar 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court has upheld the sentence of life imprisonment to a man who killed his neighbour as he suspected the deceased of practising witchcraft to kill his cattle.
Appellant Namdeo had killed his neighbour Ninaji Rupaji Ghonge, a resident of village Deodhaba, district Buldana in Maharashtra in the wee hours of October 25, 2000 with an axe as he suspected that his buffalo had died because of witchcraft practiced by the deceased.
Trial court had based the conviction order only on the testimony of Sopan, son of Ninaji who had seen the accused running away after hitting his father on the head with an axe when the victim was asleep.
A Bench comprising Justices C K Thakker and P K Balasubramanyan in judgement dated March 13 observed, ''from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses.'' ''Neither the legislation ''section 134 evidence Act, 1872'' nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused.
Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses, it is therefore open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness to record conviction,'' the court held.
UNI
Appellant Namdeo had killed his neighbour Ninaji Rupaji Ghonge, a resident of village Deodhaba, district Buldana in Maharashtra in the wee hours of October 25, 2000 with an axe as he suspected that his buffalo had died because of witchcraft practiced by the deceased.
Trial court had based the conviction order only on the testimony of Sopan, son of Ninaji who had seen the accused running away after hitting his father on the head with an axe when the victim was asleep.
A Bench comprising Justices C K Thakker and P K Balasubramanyan in judgement dated March 13 observed, ''from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses.'' ''Neither the legislation ''section 134 evidence Act, 1872'' nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused.
Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses, it is therefore open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness to record conviction,'' the court held.
UNI
Oneindia Login