In our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law, Court is concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) wholly reliable; (2) wholly unreliable; (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
– Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, (1957) SCR 981.
We are at pains to observe, manner in which present case has been dealt with by Trial Court as well as by High Court, particularly, when Trial Court awarded Death Penalty and High Court confirmed it. Death Sentence imposed is totally unsustainable in law. Jaikam Khan directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal Nos. 434-436 of 2020].
Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014] cites Vadivelu. It is said, ‘evidence’ is ‘adjective law’ highlighting and aiding ‘substantive law’.