REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2007

Ravi  …Appellant

Vs.

State Rep. by Inspector of Police …Respondent

(With Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007)

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge  in  these  appeals  is  to  the  judgment  of  a

Division Bench of the Madras High Court. Two persons have

filed the appeal and the appellant Ravi was A-1 in Criminal

Appeal No. 22 of 2007, and Ravi, appellant in Criminal Appeal

No. 23 of 2007 was A3. Ten persons had faced trial before the

learned Principal  Sessions Judge,  Kanyakumari.  During the

pendency of trial one of them i.e.  A-10 died and the charge

against him had abated. A-5 to A-9 were acquitted by the trial

Court and the remaining four were appellants before the High

Court.  A1 to A4 were convicted for offence punishable under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell are as follows:

There was previous enmity between the elder brother of

Albert  Walter  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  deceased)  i.e.

Robert Victor Singh (P.W.1) and Al and one Sasi, residing at

R.C. Street,  Monday market.  There was a case that, Al had

hacked  Sasiat  his  leg.  In  the  murder  case  related  to  one

Kumar, deceased Albert Walter was implicated as an accused.

On 24.12.1991,  when P.W.1  and deceased  were  going near

Neyyoor Hospital, Al to A4 chased the deceased. On 7.1.1992,

when P.W.1,  deceased  and  one  Ranjith  Singh  were  coming

towards the south from Neyyoor Mission Hospital, opposite to

the Primary School, at around 7 or 7.15 in the night, Al to A4

2

armed with choppers in their hands chased deceased who ran

from north towards the south. Near the house of one Shahul

Hameed, Al to A4 caught hold of deceased.  A1 hacked him at

his  neck,  jaw and right cheek.  A-2 hacked deceased  at  his

right hand and back. A3 hacked him on his head 3 times with

a chopper.  A4 hacked him on his abdomen.  Consequent to

the injuries inflicted by Al to A4, he died at the very place of

occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1, Ranjith

Guna Singh (PW 2) and Jagdeesh Chandran (PW3) in the light

shed by the electric light near the place of occurrence. P.W.1,

at around 8.30 in the night, went to the Police Station, Eraniel

and  lodged  a  written  complaint  Ex.P.1  signed  by  him

regarding  the  occurrence.  At  the  time  of  occurrence  Albert

Walter was wearing a shirt M.0.1 and a lungi M.0.2.

On 7.1.1992, at around 8.30 in the night, when the Sub-

Inspector P.W.13 was on duty in charge of the station, as per

the complaint Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1, a case was registered in

Crime No.10/92 u/s 302 IPC.  The First  Information Report

and  the  complaint  statement  were  sent  to  the  Court.  The

3

copies of these were sent to the higher officials. When P.W.17

was in-charge as the Circle Inspector, Eraniel on 7.1.1992, at

2100 hrs., he received the FIR in this case and took up the

case  for investigation.  He  visited  the place  of  occurrence  at

21.15 hrs and observing it in the presence of the witnesses

prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2.  Shelvasdas (P.W.6)

was present along with him and attested as a witness to Ex.

P.2.  P.W.17  prepared  the  Rough  sketch  Ex-P.20.  He  made

arrangements for photographing the place of occurrence. He

conducted inquest in the presence of the Panchayatdars. The

Inquest  Report  prepared  by  him  is  Ex.P.21.  During  the

inquest,  P.W.17  enquired  the  witnesses.  He  entrusted  the

corpse to Selvamani (P.W.12) Constable with the requisition of

conducting  post-mortem,  Ex.P.14  to  the  Medical  Officer,

Colachel. From the place of occurrence, the Inspector P.W.17

seized  M.O.3  blood-stained  earth,  M.O.4  sample  earth  and

prepared the mahazar Ex-P.3 in the presence of P.W.6 who

attested it as a witness.

4

As per the requisition of the Police Department, P.W.14

took photographs of the place of occurrence. The photos taken

by him are M.0.6 series and their negatives M.O.7 series. As

per the orders of the Inspector, on 8.1.1992, P.W.12 took the

corpse of Albert Walter under his responsibility, then after the

inquest  was  over,  he  took  the  corpse  to  the  doctor  and

entrusted  the  same  for  post-mortem examination.  After  the

post-mortem  was  over,  he  received  the  corpse  back  and

handed over the same to its relatives.

On 8.1.1992 as per the requisition of the Inspector PW-

17  through PW-12,  the  Doctor  (PW-10)  conducted  the  post

mortem examination  of  the  corpse  at  12  noon.  He  noticed

rigor mortis spread over the corpse and found the following

injuries on the corpse.    

1. An incised injury measuring 10 x 5 x 4 cm on the

right  cheek  extending  from  the  mouth  upto  the

backside of the head.

5

2. An incised injury measuring 4 x 3 x 3 cms noticed

on the lower jaw.

3. An incised injury measuring 10 x 5 x 5 cm at the

lower jaw beneath the first injury.

4. An incised injury measuring 10 x 10 x 5 cms on the

left side of the neck extending upto the back side of

the back.  Its edges,  muscles,  blood-vessels,  throat,

wind-pipe  had  all  been  cut.  The  neck  was  found

hanging.

5. An incised injury on the right ear. The ear was found

cut into two.

6. An injury measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm seen on the right

side of the back and below the shoulders. The right

humerus bone was fractured.

7. An  abrasion  measuring  2  x  1  cm  on  the  right

shoulder.

8. An incised  injury measuring 8 x 4 x 2 cm on the

right upper arm.

6

9. An incised  injury measuring 5 x 3 x 2 cm on the

pelvic region.

11. An incised injury measuring 15 x 3 x 2 cm in the

middle part of the head, the bone was cut into two.

12. An incised  injury measuring 7 x 3 x 2 cm on the

right side of the parietal region of the head; the bone

was seen cut.

13. An incised injury measuring 15 x 5 x 2 cm upto the

left cheek of the  temporal region and extending on

the head.

P.W.10 doctor issued the Post-mortem report (Ex.P.15).

The opinion given by the doctor was that the injuries 1 to 13

could  be  inflicted  by  choppers;  that,  injuries  1  to  4  are

grievous injuries; that, death would have occurred between 17

hrs to 20 hrs.  prior to the post-mortem examination and that,

death could have occurred because of the injuries sustained

and haemorrhage.

7

Since it became evident on investigation that offence had

been committed u/s 120(B) IPC, he has incorporated section

120(B) IPC in the case and sent the report to the court of the

Judicial Magistrate. On 14.1.1992 P.W.17 arrested Al to A4

below the Villukkuvi over bridge. At that time, he recorded

the confessional statement given by Al, in the presence of the

witnesses.  The  admissible  portion  of  the  confessional

statement  is  Ex.P-22.  On  the  basis  of  the  confessional

statement,  Al  took  P.W.17  and  other  witnesses  to  the

southern bund of Pandara tank and from a hole there, took

out a sickle and from the tank 3 sickles and presented them.

These are Ex. P.8 series. P.W.17 seized them under Ex.P.23

Mahazar  in  the  presence  of  the  witnesses.  At  the  Eranial

Junction, P.W.17 seized the Car No. T. N. 72 - 0156, M.0.9 as

identified by Al in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P. 24

mahazar prepared by him.  At Monday market, auto stand,

he seized the auto No. T.N.74-4461 (M.0.5) and prepared the

mahazar Ex.P.25. At Kanyakumari Taxi Stand, he seized the

Car in No. T. N. 69 Z 0255, as pointed out by Al, from one

8

Selvam  under  Ex.P.26  mahazar.  Then,  he  brought  the

accused and the material  objects to the Police Station and

thereafter  sent  them to  judicial  custody.  On  15.1.1992  at

around 6’o clock in morning he arrested the accused A8  and

A9 at Eraniel, brought them to the Police Station and then

sent them to judicial custody. He showed the sickles seized

on 16.1.1992 to the Medical Officer and made enquiries from

him. On 17.1.1992 he seized the registers from Hotel Sri Ram

on Tuticorin - Ettayapuram road. He sent a requisition to the

Judicial Magistrate to record the statements of the witnesses

Kaba, Selvam and Ayyappan under Section 164 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).  He sent a

requisition Ex.P.27 to the Court, to send the case properties

for chemical examination. The objects were sent for chemical

examination along with the letter of the Judicial Magistrate.

The copy of the Judicial Magistrate's letter is Ex. P.28. After

the chemical examination, the Chemical Examination Report

Ex-P.29 and the Serology Report Ex.P.30 were received.

9

When  P.W.16  was  working  as  Judicial  Magistrate,

Padmanabhapuram, as per the requisition of the Inspector,

he  recorded  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  Kaba,  Selvam

and  Ayyappan  on  27.1.1992  under  Section  164  of  Code.

Ex.P.17  is  the  statement  of  Ayyappan;  Ex.P.18,  is  the

statement of Selvam and Ex.P.19 is the statement of Kaba.

Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof,

a charge sheet was filed.  Accused persons pleaded innocence

and false implication. During trial  some of  the  witnesses

resiled  from  their  statements  made  during  investigation.

According  to  the  trial  Court,  the  evidence  of  PW-1  was

sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. The stand that on

the basis of solitary witness’s evidence the prosecution version

should  not  be  accepted,  did  not  find  favour  with  the  trial

Court  who directed  conviction for  offence  punishable  under

Section 302 IPC.

3. Before the High Court the stand about the sustainability

of the evidence of PW-1 was re-iterated. It was highlighted that

10

he was brother of the deceased and therefore was interested

and a partisan witness. The High Court did not accept that

plea and found the evidence of PW-1 to be clear and cogent

and dismissed the appeal.  

4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that conviction should not be recorded on the basis

of a single witness’s evidence.  It is pointed out that there was

no  question  of  having  sufficient  light  at  the  place  of

occurrence  at  about  7.15  p.m.  and  PW-1  could  not  have

identified the accused.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand

supported  the  judgments  of  the  trial  Court  and  the  High

Court.

6. So far as the identification aspect is concerned PW-1 has

categorically stated that there was light in the nearby church

and the street lights near Primary School were burning at the

time of occurrence and he could see the occurrence in that

light.   The  trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  referred  to  the

11

presence  of  street  lights  in  Ext.P-20,  the  rough  sketch.

Therefore the plea of identification being not possible has no

substance.  Further the accused persons were known to the

witness.  That is also a relevant factor.

7. The  law  relating  to  the  approach  of  the  courts  when

prosecution  version  essentially  rests  on  the  testimony  of  a

single  witness  has  been  highlighted  by  this  Court  in  many

cases.  

8. On a consideration of  the relevant  authorities  and the

provisions  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  1872  (in  short  the

‘Evidence Act’) the following propositions may be safely stated

as firmly established:

(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the

testimony  of  a  single  witness  though  uncorroborated.  One

credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other

witnesses of indifferent character.

(2) Unless  corroboration  is  insisted  upon  by  statute,

courts  should  not  insist  on  corroboration  except  in  cases

12

where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself

requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be

insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of

a witness whose evidence  is that of an accomplice  or of an

analogous character.

(3)  Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single

witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and

circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid

down  in  a  matter  like  this  and  much  depends  upon  the

judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.  

9. Therefore,  there  is  no  hesitation  in  holding  that  the

contention that in a murder case the court should insist upon

plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated.

10. The above position was highlighted in Vadivelu Thevar v.

The State of Madras (1957 SCR 981).  

13

11. The  position  has  been  re-iterated  in  large  number  of

cases.  Reference may be made to  Joseph v.  State of Kerala

(2003 (1) SCC 465), Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

(2004  (12)  SCC 229)  ,  Bhimapa Chandappa  Hosamani  and

Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2006 (11) SCC 323) and to Kunju

Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu [2008(2)SCC 151].  

12. In last named case, it was held as follows:

“As  rightly  noted  by  the  trial  court  and  the High Court  even though PW 1 did not support the prosecution version in toto, yet his evidence lent corroboration to the evidence of PW 2 that the deceased, PW 2 and another had gone to take bath and at that time the accused came there. The  evidence  of  PW  2  has  not  been  shaken although he was cross-examined at length.

It is necessary to refer to the pivotal argument of the appellant’s learned counsel  that PW 2 is the sole eyewitness in the present case and no conviction should be based on the testimony of such an eyewitness who cannot be described as wholly reliable.

In Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1957 SCR  981)  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 the

14

first two categories this Court said that they pose little  difficulty  but  in  the  case  of  the  third category  of  witnesses,  corroboration  would  be required.  The  relevant  portion  is  quoted  as under: (AIR p. 619, paras 11-12)

‘11. … 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.

12.  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.’

15

Vadivelu Thevar case (supra)  was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad 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 Section 134 of the 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  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 Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.”

13. Additionally,  in  the  instant  case,  the  recovery  under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is there.  M.O.8 series,

four Vettu Kathis were recovered by the Investigating Officer

on the basis of confessional statement of A-1 vide Exh.P4.  

14. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court

does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The

appeals are dismissed.  

16

………………………..……..…..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………… ……..….J.

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, September 5, 2008    

17