Criminal Law - Is it mandatory to examine all eye witnesses

I am prompted by the argument of Mr Deshpande, advocate for Mr Salman Khan in Bombay High Court that the sessions court has not examined Mr Kamaal Khan, eye witness to the accident.

Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. 

In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 and it will be useful to take note of para 11 of the report, which reads as under :

".The contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognised in S.134, which by laying down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact" has enshrined the well recognised maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. ."

In Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh & Ors (2003) 2 SCC 518 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1820883/ Supreme Court held "The prosecution having examined three eye-witnesses, in our opinion, there was no necessity of multiplying the number of witnesses and no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution merely on the ground that Kashmira Singh or Pritam Singh were not examined."