“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 chi1d, it has always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particularly 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.”

The Privy Council decision was considered by 'this Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras2, in which it was observed as under:

"On a consideration of the relevant authorities arid 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 un