S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. :

1. Leave granted.

2. The well-known maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted" has been given statutory placement in Section 134 of the Evidence Act which provides as under:-

"134. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."

3. This section marks a departure from the English Law where a number of statutes still prohibit convictions for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness. This difference was noticed by the Privy Council in Mohamad Gugal Esa Mamasan Ger Alalan v. The King (A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 3) wherein it was laid down as under:

"It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that assuming the unsworned evidence was admissible the court could not act upon it unless it was corroborated. In England, where provision has been made for the reception of unsworned evidence from a child, it has always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particularly(ly?) implicating the accused. But in the Indian Act there is no such provision and the evidence is made admissible whether corroborated or not. Once there is admissible evidence a court can act upon it; corroboration unless required by statute goes only to the weight and value of the evidence. It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworned but, this is a rule of prudence and not of law."

4. The Privy Council decision was considered by this Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614) in which it was observed as under:-

"On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:

(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness out ways 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 a much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.

In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in noticing that the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated, Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. The Legislature determined, as long ago as 1872 presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses."

This Court further observed as under. -

"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 guilty 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. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on su