send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In which of the following case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Section 114, illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, envisages the presumptive uncredit worthiness of an accomplice. But, then section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that a conviction is not illegal merely because it rests upon an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Indictments, particularly of serious crimes, the concept of caution and the rule of prudence enjoin that it is unsafe to rest a conviction on the evidence of a guilty partner in a crime without independent corroboration on the material particulars. Judicial experience was thus, elevated to a rule of law. “It is a practice” it is said “which deserves all the reference of law”.
Balwant Kaur vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 1988 SC 139
Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai vs. Deceased Dhulabhai Galababhai, AIR 1992 SC 2009.
State of Punjab vs. Balvan Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872
Pabitra Kumar Roy vs. Alita D’Souza, AIR 2006 SC 3355.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses