Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)Section 6 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy And Three ... vs The State Of Hyderabad on 14 March, 1956
As to the second point, namely, that we should not accept
the solitary testimony of Jawanaram in the circumstances of
this case, learned counsclrelies on Vemireddy Satyanarayan
Reddy v. The State of Hyderabad (1). In that case there was
the solitary testimony of one witness and it was urged that
he was an accomplice. This Court hold that he was not an
accomplice but remarked that "we would still want
corroboration on material particulars in this particular
case, as he is the only witness to the crime and as it would
be unsafe to hang four- people on his sole testimony unless
we feclconvinced that he is speaking the truth." The reason
why this Court said so in that
(1) [1956] S. C. R. 247.
Section 137 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
case was that though the witness was not an accomplice his
position was considered somewhat analogous to that of an
accomplice though not exactly the same. It was in those
circumstances that this Court said that corroboration in
material particulars would be required in the circumstances
of that case. We are of opinion that those observations
cannot be divorced from the context of that case. In the
present case Jawanaram is neither an accomplice nor anything
analogous to an accomplice; he is an ordinary witness who
was undoubtedly present at the time the incident took place.
'.rho case of such a solitary witness was considered by this
Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1) and
after referring to the earlier case it was held that as a
general rule a court may act on the testimony of a single
witness, though uncorroborated. It was further held that
unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts
should not insist on corroboration except in cages where the
nature of the testimony of the single witness itself
requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be
insisted upon, and that the question whether corroboration
of the testimony of a single witness was or was not
necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each
case. These are the general principles which we have to
apply in the case of the testimony of a single witness, like
Jawanaram. But as we have held that in the present case
there is corroboration of Jawanaram's statement by his
former statement deposed to by Roopram, it is not a case of
altogether uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
In any case the evidence of Jawanaram has been considered by
both the Sessions Judge and the High Court, and the Sessions
Judge was prepared to convict the appellants on the sole
testimony of Jawanaram while the High Court has also
accepted that testimony, though it has added that it is
corroborated by the statement of Roopram. In
(1) [1957] S. C. R. 981.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Nazar Mohammad vs The State on 24 February, 1953
The first question therefore that arises in the appeal is
whether the statement of Roopram to the effect that
Jawanaram told him immediately after the incident, when he
came out of his shop that the appellants and two others were
responsible for the murder of Bhimsen and the injuries to
Lekhram and himself, is admissible, either under s. 6 or
under s. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. We (lo riot think
it necessary to consider whether this statement of Roopram
is admissible under s. 6 of the Evidence Act and shall
confine ourselves to the question. whether it can be
admitted under s. 157 as corroboration of Jawanaram's state-
ment. Learned counsclfor the appellants in this connection
relies on Mt. Misri v. Emperor (1), and Nazar Singh v. The
State (2) which support him and lay down that unless the
witness to be corroborated says in his statement in court
that be, had told certain things immediately after the
incident to another person, that other person cannot give
evidence and say that the witness bad told him certain
things immediately after the incident. The argument is that
the corroboration that is envisaged by s. 157 is of the
statement of the witness in court that he had told certain
things to the person corroborating the witness's statement,
and if the witness did not say in court that he had told
certain things to that person, that person cannot state that
the witness had told him certain things immediately after
the incident and
(1) A.I.R. 1934 Sind 100,
(2) A.I.R. 1931 Pepsu 66.
Musammat Misri vs Emperor on 1 January, 1800
The first question therefore that arises in the appeal is
whether the statement of Roopram to the effect that
Jawanaram told him immediately after the incident, when he
came out of his shop that the appellants and two others were
responsible for the murder of Bhimsen and the injuries to
Lekhram and himself, is admissible, either under s. 6 or
under s. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. We (lo riot think
it necessary to consider whether this statement of Roopram
is admissible under s. 6 of the Evidence Act and shall
confine ourselves to the question. whether it can be
admitted under s. 157 as corroboration of Jawanaram's state-
ment. Learned counsclfor the appellants in this connection
relies on Mt. Misri v. Emperor (1), and Nazar Singh v. The
State (2) which support him and lay down that unless the
witness to be corroborated says in his statement in court
that be, had told certain things immediately after the
incident to another person, that other person cannot give
evidence and say that the witness bad told him certain
things immediately after the incident. The argument is that
the corroboration that is envisaged by s. 157 is of the
statement of the witness in court that he had told certain
things to the person corroborating the witness's statement,
and if the witness did not say in court that he had told
certain things to that person, that person cannot state that
the witness had told him certain things immediately after
the incident and
(1) A.I.R. 1934 Sind 100,
(2) A.I.R. 1931 Pepsu 66.
1