Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter IX: Of Witnesses
Section 134: Number of witnesses
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
No particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 134
-
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable.
-
Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the conviction, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises; whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.302 IPC is sustainable in law.
-
Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants by the High Court u/s.302 read with s.120-B, IPC and additionally, s.201, IPC for A-4 alone, is justified.
- Salim Malik @Munna v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Banshi Prasad Yadav v. State of Delhi & Ors
- Suraj v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Tarvinder @ Poly
- Mahesh v. The State (Gnct of Delhi)
- Mohd Nasim v. The State
-
Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnes s despite contradictions, only…
-
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat
Assault by mob, Seven accused were convicted, including the present appellant-accused no .6, for the offences punishable u/s. 396 r/w. s.149, s.395 r/w. s.149, s. 307 r/w. s.149, s.435 r/w. s.149 and s.201 r/w. s.149 of…
- Mahal Singh v. State of Delhi
- Mohd. Farhan v. State
- Bharat Kumar Goswami v. The State of Delhi
- Azad @ Gourav v. State of Gnct of Delhi & Anr
- Jitender @ Jittu v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- Munna Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Shishpal @ Shishu v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Rajesh Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P.
- State of Rajasthan v. Bablu @ Om Prakash
- Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
- Amar Singh v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhaakki Lal and Another
- Gandi Doddabasappa @ Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka
- Sudip Kr. Sen @ Biltu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
- State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and Others
- Deny Bora v. State of Assam
- Veer Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
- Manjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Shanmugam and Anr. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
- Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
- Yanab Sheikh@ Gagu v. State of West Bengal
- Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu
- State of Haryana v. Shakuntla and Ors.
- Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of U.P.
- Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Prithipal Singh Etc v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
- State of U.P. v. Krishna Master & Ors.
- Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal
- Raj Narain Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- State of M.P. v. Laakhan @ Lakhan
- U.O.I. v. Bal Mukund & Ors.
- Vithal Pundalik Zendge v. St Ate of Maharashtra
- Ravi v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
- Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem Shanker and Ors.
- Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar v. The State of Maharashtra
- Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra
- Syed Ibrahim v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
- Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Sunil Kumar v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan
- Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors.
- Joseph v. State of Kerala
- Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar Etc.
- Arivazhagan v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police
- Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar
- Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras