IMPORTANT POINT
As a general rule the Court can and may act on testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Appellant inflicted knife blows on deceased while other appellant caught hold of him-Conviction on testimony of sole eye witness, brother of deceased-Sustainability-Other eye witness had turned hostile-No legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of single witness-Minor details not indicated in FIR and later on elaborated in Court would not justify criticism-Evidence of eye witness found truthful who had graphically described assault on deceased-No reason to discard evidence of eye witness and conviction called for no interference.
       (ii) Criminal Law-Conviction on testimony of sole eye witness-Evidence is to be weighed and not counted-Test would be whether evidence had a ring of truth and was cogent, credible and trustworthy.
       Held : Vadivelu Thevar s case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. (Para 9)
       Merely because of the fact that there were some minor omissions, which are but natural, considering the fact that the examination in court took place years after the occurrence the evidence does not become suspect. Necessarily there cannot be exact and precise reproduction in any mathematical manner. What needs to be seen is whether the version presented in the court was substantially similar to what was stated during investigation. It is only when exaggerations fundamentally change the nature of the case, the court has to consider whether the witness was telling the truth or not. As has been held by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, the evidence of PW5 was truthful evidence. He has graphically described the assaults on the deceased. Accused-Dharamvir gave several blows on the person of decease while accused-Sunil caught hold of him to facilitate the assailants. Section 34 of the Act is clearly attracted. This is not a case where anything substantial has been brought on record to disregard the evidence of PW5. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These two appeals are directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants jointly. Appellants-Dharamvir and Sunil Kumar were held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). Accused-appellant Dharamvir was further found guilty of offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act ). Each was sentenced to imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. Dharamvir was separately sentenced to undergo RI for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution version delineated in its essentials is as follows:

Jai Kishan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) was the brother of Rajesh (PW5). They were living at Sultanpuri. Deceased used to sell eggs in a kokha and was on visiting terms with an eunuch named Mumtaz, who lived in E-Block Sultanpuri. The father of Rajesh had advised deceased to severe his relationship with Mumtaz and he had stopped going to Mumtaz. This had annoyed Mumtaz. Accused-appellant Dharamvir was also visiting Mumtaz, who had instigated Dharamvir against the deceased. On 22.5.1996 at about 7.00 p.m. Dharamvir had come to the house of Rajesh and told deceased in a threatening tone as to why he was not visiting Mumtaz. He wanted to take deceased along with him but at the advise of Rajesh he did not accompany him.

3. On 23.5.1996 when Rajesh (PW5) got up in the morning he found that his brother Jai Kishan was not present in his room and his room was locked. He was suspicious and started searching for his brother. He went to the house of Mumtaz. It was about 7.00 a.m. when he found his brother there. Both the accused-appellants Dharamvir and Sunil were also there. They were engaged in some arguments. He told his deceased brother to come back home. Mumtaz told Rajesh that his brother would be sent back soon. Rajesh (PW5) started coming back towards his home. When he reached the park of A Block he heard the voice of his brother and saw his brother running from the house of Mumtaz. Accused-appellants Dharamvir and Sunil were chasing him. Dharamvir had an open knife in his hand. When deceased reached near A Block, appellant-Sunil caught hold of him and appellant-Dharamvir gave him knife blows. Rajesh had raised the alarm "Bachao-Bachao" (save-save). In the meantime Vinod, son of Piary Lal (PW3) and some other persons reached there. Accused-appellants Sunil and Dharamvir ran away. Rajesh along with Vinod took his brother to the hospital where his brother was declared to have been brought dead. In his complaining statement he pointed that Mumtaz, Dharamvir and Sunil in furtherance of their common intention had attacked his brother-deceased. On the basis of said complaining statement, first information report was lodged and investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation charge sheet was placed and the accused persons were tried.

4. To further the prosecution version 17 witnesses were examined. Two witnesses, namely, Vinod and Rajesh (PWs 3 and 5 respectively) were stated to be eyewitnesses. However, Vinod made a departure from the statements purported to have been given during investigation when he deposed in Court. But Rajesh reiterated the statements while tendering evidence. Accused persons claimed false implication. It is to be noted that another person, namely, Praveen @ Monty was arrayed as an accused. Placing reliance on the evidence of Rajesh (PW5) the Trial court found the present appellants guilty while it was held that evidence were not sufficient to fasten guilt on Parveen. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted accused persons by the impugned judgment.

5. In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this being a case where ultimate r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1018

IMPORTANT POINT As a general rule the Court can and may act on testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
As a general rule the Court can and may act on testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.