A is prosecuted for the offence of murder of B. There is only one eye-witness, namely C, of the occurrence. There is no other eye-witness or any other circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of C. Can A’ be convicted..

Question: A is prosecuted for the offence of murder of B. There is only one eye-witness, namely C, of the occurrence. There is no other eye-witness or any other circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of C.

Can A’ be convicted even in a case of a serious offence of murder on the basis of sole testimony of C without any corroboration either by direct or circumstantial evidence? Give reasons and also refer to the relevant provision and judicial decision on the point, if any, under the Indian Evidence Act.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A is prosecuted for the offence of murder of B. There is only one eye-witness, namely C, of the occurrence. There is no other eye-witness or any other circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of C. Can A’ be convicted..]

Answer

Section 134 does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any fact. It is not the quantity but the quality of evidence that matters. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about the number of witnesses. It states: “No particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact.” i.e. quantity of witnesses not required.

In Ravi v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, [AIR 2009 SC 214] the Supreme Court through J. Dr Arijit Pasayat held that the contention in a murder case, the Court should insist upon the plurality of witnesses, was too broad that. It laid down the following propositions—

1. As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires, as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.

In Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, [AIR 2003 SC 834] it was held by Supreme Court that the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of the given fact. However faced with a testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first two categories, there is no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of a single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable direct or circumstantial before acting upon the testimony of a single witness.

Thus, it is well settled in view of section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act that whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes. Where the prosecution rests on the sole testimony of one eye witness the same should be wholly reliable. However minor discrepancies do not matter.

Therefore, to answer the present question at hand, where A is prosecuted for the offence of murder of B and there is only one ‘eye-witness’, namely C, of the occurrence. There is no other eye-witness or any other circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of C. A’ can be convicted even in a case of a serious offence of murder on the basis of sole testimony of C without any corroboration either by direct or circumstantial evidence to corroborate testimony if the court is satisfied that the sole witness testimony is completely reliable.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X