Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence-9th Edn., at Pages 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. 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 State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 18 of 27 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. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact."

17.1 It has been highlighted in Sunil Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 SCC 367 that:

"As a general rule, the Court can and may act on his testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on a sole testimony of single witness. This is the logic of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the Courts to act upon the testimony of witnesses. 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. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 19 of 27 Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."

"As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. This 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. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence is having ring of truth is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise"

State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 20 of 27 17.4 Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The legislature has mandated, 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. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." The legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. If the legislature were to insist upon a plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime would go unpunished. If 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. 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 is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. But, if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. The Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable.