Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47. 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 eyes of law.

48. In the aforesaid context this court thinks fit to discuss the evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness. 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.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB " 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."

52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under:-

(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] .

*** 2026:JHHC:5093-DB

36. Similarly, a fact stated by a doctor in a post-mortem report could be rejected by a court relying on eyewitness testimony, though this would be quite infrequent. In Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal [Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 838 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 583] , the post-mortem report and the oral testimony of the doctor who conducted that examination was that no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. This Court rejected the "medical evidence" and upheld the view of the trial court (and the High Court) that the testimony of the eyewitnesses supported by other evidence would prevail over the post-mortem report and testimony of the doctor. It was held: (SCC p. 286, para 41) "33. The question before us, therefore, is whether the "medical evidence" should be believed or whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses should be preferred? There is no doubt that ocular evidence should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical evidence. This principle has more recently been accepted in Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 :

(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] .

***

36. Similarly, a fact stated by a doctor in a post-mortem report could be rejected by a court relying on eyewitness testimony, though this would be quite infrequent. In Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal [Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 838 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 583] , the post-mortem report and the oral testimony of the doctor who conducted that examination was that no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. This Court rejected the "medical evidence" and upheld the view of the trial court (and the High Court) that the testimony of the eyewitnesses supported by other evidence would prevail over the post-mortem report and testimony of the doctor. It was held: (SCC p. 286, para 41)