Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

64. The learned counsel has contended that the learned trial Court, even in absence of corroboration of the testimony of P.W.1 who is self- proclaimed sole injured eyewitness has convicted the appellants which is bad in the eyes of law.

65. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit to discuss the evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness.

66. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. 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 Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, 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. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

67. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be passed also on the basis of the testimony of sole witness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy, as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin 2026:JHHC:14703-DB Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91, for ready reference, paragraphs 30 to 34 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder as :-

"30. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and the rest i.e. depositions of PW 2 to PW 8, could be treated merely as hearsay. The same cannot be relied upon for conviction.
31. In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court repelled a similar submission observing that: (SCC p. 371, para 9) "9. ... 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 Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration." In fact, 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. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

68. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has held as under: -

" 33. ---The Court has stated the principle that, as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable and base the conviction on the testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness."