Conviction of accused

Conviction could be handed down placing reliance on the sole testimony of a child witness, but as a rule of prudence, it is generally preferred that it should be corroborated by some other evidence so as to ensure the safe administration of justice.

Petitioner/convict sought reduction of sentence, inter alia, on ground that she was convicted of several offences at same time, and her sentence of imprisonment, in present form, added to 100 years which was beyond expectancy of life

Validity

Under S.35, Cr.P.C., total period of imprisonment at one trial could not exceed 25 years, and sentence of imprisonment of petitioner/convict, being around 100 years, was impermissible and such anomaly should be rectified

High Court directed that sentences of life imprisonment awarded to petitioner should run concurrently and she should be given benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Imposition of separate sentences would not be justified where acts constituting two different offences formed part of same transaction against same accused.

No one would be convicted for a crime, unless his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution through reliable and legally admissible evidence

Dubious and shaky kind of evidence could not be treated as substantive evidence

For convicting an accused on capital charge there should be confirmed authentic, direct evidence, which should appeal to logic and reason

Admissibility and credibility of evidence, were two different matters and one should not be mixed up with other.

Conviction could only be based upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt; and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of accused.

Onerous duty of the court to sift the grain from the chaff, and find out the truth from the falsehood in order to arrive at a just conclusion in any case for safe administration of justice.