Well, the answer to this question is ‘Yes’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated on several occasions that the Court may rely upon the testimony of the single eye witness while convicting a person without any further corroboration. There are remarkable judgments wherein this question had been a matter of issue and the insights of few will be discussed below:
NOTABLE JUDGMENTS
The State Of Punjab versus Gurmit Singh & Ors, 1996 AIR 1393
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the order of Hon’ble Trial Court and convicted all the three accused persons for committing the offence of Rape and Abduction.
The Prosecutrix in this case was a young girl of 16 years of age who was going to the house of her maternal uncle after taking her tests. Suddenly, a blue ambassador car being driven by a sikh youth aged 20/25 years came from behind and stopped near her. One out of three accused came out of the car and caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arm and pushed her inside the car. All the three accused drove her to the `kotha’ of the Tubewell and raped her one by one. On completion of the investigation, all the accused persons were charged for offences under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC,1860.
The Hon’ble Trial Court, thus, disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix basically for the following reasons and passed the judgment of acquittal of the accused, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through an Appeal.
- She was so ignorant about the make etc. of the car that entire story that she was abducted in the car becomes doubtful” particularly because she could not explain the difference between a Fiat car, Ambassador car or a Master car;
- The investigating officer had “shown pitiable negligence” during the investigation by not tracing out the car and the driver;
- The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm while being abducted even though she had passed through the bus adda of village Pakhowal.
- The story of abduction” has been introduced by the prosecutrix or by her father or by the thanedar just to give the gravity of offence” and
- No corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix was available on the record and that the story that the accused had left her near the school next morning was not believable because the accused could have no “sympathy” for her.
- There had been delay in lodging the FIR and as such the chances of false implication of the accused could not be ruled out.
- The medical evidence did not help the prosecution case.
The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Hon’ble Trial Court and arrived at the conclusion that;
“The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.”
Phool Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1520 of 2021
In this case, one of the contentions raised by the rape accused who was convicted under Section 376 of the Code was that the prosecution case rests solely on the deposition of the prosecutrix (rape victim) only and that no other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the case of the prosecutrix.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction order under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reiterated that a rape accused can be convicted on sole testimony of prosecuterix if she is found to be credible and trustworthy.
Sanjay Versus State of Haryana, CRA-D-1903-DB-2014 (O&M)
In this case, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that:
“Statutorily, there exists no prohibition on child witnesses to depose in criminal or civil cases, except when the child does not understand the questions put to them, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that when a child fully understands the questions and can provide answers regarding the same, rationally, then the testimony of a child witness can be the sole reason for conviction.”
Amar Singh Versus The State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015
In this laudable judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an Appeal while giving a benefit of doubt to the accused persons convicted under Section 302 IPC, 1860 by Hon’ble Trial Court, reiterated that:
Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
It also held that:
“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. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony 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 the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.”
Ganesan Versus State, (2020) 10 SCC 573
In the above citation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, and credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.
State (NCT of Delhi) Versus PankajChaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above matter held that:
“Conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration.”
Gulaband Another Versus State of U.P, Criminal Appeal No. – 2410 of 1985
In this case, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court set aside the order of conviction for the offence of murder committed in the year 1980 after concluding that the testimony of the sole eye witness in the case isn’t wholly reliable.
It held that conviction on the basis of testimony of sole eye witness is permissible provided his evidence is free of any blemish or suspicion and impresses the Court as wholly truthful, reliable and natural.
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, we can arrive at a decision that if testimony of sole witness is found to be reliable and trustworthy, then in such cases, it requires no corroboration and the court may convict the accused on the basis of the testimony of the sole witness.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while placing reliance on various precendents has time and again held that the testimony of the sole witness is sufficient to hold the accused guilty if it inspires confidence.