The quality and not the quantity of the evidence is necessary for proving or disproving a fact

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 16th February 2020

Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal no. 112 of 2008)

Facts of the case: 

1. The accused, balachandran is the resident of the Ceylon Refugee Camp, Bhavanisagar. The deceased, Sudhakaran is also a resident of the same camp. Prior to the date of occurrence, the parents of the accused had arranged his marriage with Selvi and also completed the Betrothal ceremony. The deceased fell in love with Selvi. Two days prior to the occurrence, he has offered a flower after meeting her. Selvi refused to take that flower and told him that her marriage is fixed with the accused. This incident was informed to accused.
2. On the date of occurrence, when deceased along with 2 friends were proceeding to take bath at ARS Canal, accused came there and caught hold of deceased and assaulted him while using abusive language. He gave serious blows all over the body of deceased with Vettu Aruval. 
3. Deceased fell on the ground and was gasping for life. His brother arranged to take him to Bhavanisagar Govt. Hospital where first aid was given as he was in serious condition, hospital staff arranged to take him to Coimbatore Govt. Hospital but patient died in the way. The case was registered against accused. Police altered the charge from 341 to 302 of the IPC. 
4. As accused pleaded innocence, trial was conducted and trail court found him guilty and gave him sentence for imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-. Being aggrieved of the judgment, accused filed an appeal before High Court; but High Court dismissed the appeal as there was no substance. 
5. Therefore, accused has filed this present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Judgment:

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the motive for the crime has not been established as the evidence of the girl does not show that she was being harassed by the deceased. Additionally, it is submitted that after PW 1 did not fully support the prosecution version and on the testimony of a single witness i.e. PW 2, the conviction should not have been recorded.
2.  Learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment stating that the judgment pronounced by the trial court is just and consequential. 
3. Pivotal argument of the appellants 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. While supporting his argument, he relied upon case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras^[1] where Supreme Court had gone into this controversy and divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, i) wholly reliable, ii) wholly unreliable and iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of the first two categories, Court said that they pose little difficulty but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. 
4. 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. 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. 
5. 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 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.

^[1] (AIR 1957 SC 614)