The testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction, provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness.

22. Quoting Section 134 of the Evidence Act, Their Lordships stated (at AIR p. 619, para 11) that:

“We have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated.”

The Court proceeded to state: (AIR p. 619, para 11)

“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. 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 such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.

The Court also stated: (AIR p. 619, para 12)

“There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.”

23. In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eyewitness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given the sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration.

“It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs.” (SCC p. 807, para 19)

24. In Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 the Court observed: (SCC p. 285, para 3)

“Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document