In the context of the law of evidence, Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra is related with

Dagdu addresses accomplice evidence and material corroboration implicating the accused. The historical section 133 competence rule and section 114 illustration(b) prudential caution must be read together. The case is therefore identified with accomplice testimony among these choices.

Current law: BSA section 138 retains accomplice competence but now refers expressly to corroborated testimony in its conviction clause, unlike the old uncorroborated wording.