credibility of witness
Rajan Salvi
(Querist) 24 August 2008
This query is : Resolved
When can it be said that a witness is credible, trustworthy, natural, reliable and on whose statement alone conviction can be based? Pl support answers with SC or HC judgments.
KamalNayanSaxena
(Expert) 24 August 2008
In Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) this Court had gone into this controversy and divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first two categories this Court said that they pose little difficulty but in the case of third category of witness corroboration would be required. The relevant portion is quoted as under :-
". . . . . . . . . . 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. Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. 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. . . . . . . . . . . ."
Vadivelu Thevar's case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad and others v. State of M. P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). This Court held that 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 S. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court 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 S. 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
Vadivelu Thevar's case (supra) was also referred to with approval in the case of AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 552 "Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi"
= 2003 AIR SCW 6026
Rajan Salvi
(Querist) 24 August 2008
THANX
In my case the trial Judge convicted all the accused solely relying upon testimony of husband whose wife was abducted , raped and murdered. Husband after 3 days of abduction filed missing complaint and after 5 days when the body was found and Accidental Death Report was filed, he filed FIR naming all the accused. His version is the sole basis on which accused were convicted . There is absolutely no other evidence.8 out of 12 witnesses became hostile.
