Supreme Court of India
KUNJU @ BALACHANDRANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 58
- Decided
- 16 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A conviction may be based on the testimony of a single wholly reliable witness; the number of witnesses is irrelevant if the evidence is cogent, credible, and trustworthy.
Summary
The appellant Kunju @ Balachandran was convicted of murder (IPC s.302) and assault (IPC s.341) based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑2, who saw the accused attack the deceased. The trial court, and subsequently the Madras High Court, upheld the conviction despite the fact that the original informant, PW‑1, withdrew his statement, providing only limited corroboration. The appellant argued that a conviction should not rest on a sole eyewitness who was not proven wholly reliable. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that the quality, not the quantity, of evidence determines its admissibility, and that a single witness may suffice if wholly reliable. Citing precedents, the Court held that no legal impediment exists to convict on the basis of a sole reliable witness, though corroboration is required when doubts arise. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under IPC s.302 can be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness under Section 134 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the sole eyewitness, PW‑2, was wholly reliable and thus did not require corroboration.
- Whether the withdrawal of PW‑1's statement necessitated additional corroboration for conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 134
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 341
Subjects
sole eyewitnesssection 134 evidencereliability of witnesscorroborationmurder convictionIndian Penal Codecriminal evidence
Judgment
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 781
+· KUNJU @ BALACHANDRAN A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Crl. A. No. 112 of 2008)
JANUARY 16, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
•
A Evidence Act, 1872: s. 134 - Testimony of sole witness -
Evidentiary value of, for recording conviction - Held:
Conviction can be based on testimony of single witness c
provided he is wholly reliable - It is not the quantity but quality
that is relevant- Evidence has to be weighed and not counted
- Test is whether evidence is cogent and trustworthy- On facts,
conviction under s.302 /PC based on testimony of sole
eyewitness upheld - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302, 341.
D
The prosecution case was that the marriage of PW~5
--1 was arranged with the accused. Two days prior to the date
of occurrence, the deceased met PW-5 and offered flowers
to her. PW-5 refused to receive the flower and told him
that her marriage was fixed with the accused. This E
incident was informed to the accused. On the day of
incident, the deceased along with. his two friends, PW-1
· and PW-2 went to take bath at canal, where accused came
and assaulted deceased and gave various cuts on his
_., body. Deceased fell down but accused continued to inflict F
injuries all over his body.
PW-2 informed the brother of deceased about the
incident who came to the spot and took deceased to the
hospital. In the hospital, PW-7, Inspector recorded the
statement of PW-1. The case was registered under ss.341 G
.. -t and 307 IPC. Later the deceased died and the case was
converted into one under ss.341 and 302 IPC. Before the
trial Court, PW-1, the author of the First Information Report
resiled from his statement which was recorded during
781 H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R
A investigation. Relying on the evidence of PW2, trial Court
recorded the conviction under ss.302, 341 IPC. High Court
affirmed the conviction.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the
conviction was wrongly recorded on basis of the
B testimony of a sole eye-witness i.e. PW-2.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
>
HELD: As a general rule, the court can and may act
on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly
c reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a
person on the sole testimony of a single witness. 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,
D 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
r-
Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, t
is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. On
analysis of the factual scenario and on applying the
E
principles of law, the appeal is without merit. [Para 9
and 11) [786-D-F, G]
Vadivelu Thevar v State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614;
Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP AIR 1994 SC 1251; Sunil
F Kumar v State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 SCC 367 -
relied on.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 112 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.6.2005 of
G the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
28 of 2003.
Shashi Bhushan Kumar for the Appellant.
V. Kanakaraj, S. Joseph Aristotle, S. Prabhu
H Ramasubramanian and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent.
KUNJU @ BALACHANDRAN v. STATE OF 783
TAMIL NADU. [PASAYAT, J.]
·t- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by
the appellant who was convicted for offence punishable under B
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')
. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
_,.
fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. The conviction was
recorded and sentence imposed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge Gobichettipalayam in Sessions Case No. 59 c
of 2002 dated 03.09.2002.
3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
The accused Kunju @ Balachandran is the resident of
Ceylon Refugee Camp at Bhavanisagar. Sudhakaran D
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') also was residing in
-i the same Refugee Camp. Prior to the date of occurrence, the
parents of the accused.arranged to get his marriage with Selvi
(PW-5). Betrothal ceremony was also over. The deceased fell
in love with Selvi (PW-5). Two days prior to the date of
E
occurrence, the deceased met PW-5 and offered flower to her.
P.W-5 ·refused to receive the flower and told him that already
her betrothal was held with the accused. This incident was
informed to the accused.
On the date of occurrence i.e. on 28.2.2001, at about 6.50 F
p.m., the deceased along with two other friends, Stephen (PW-
1) and Siva (PW-2) was proceeding to take bath atA.R.S. Canal.
The accused came there and restrained the deceased by
catching hold of his arm and dragged and assaulted him while
abusing him in filthy language. He took out a Vettu Aruval (M.0.1.)
G
-t from his hip and gave cuts on various parts of the body of the
deceased. The deceased fell down, but the accused continued
to inflict injuries all over the body. PWs 1 and 2, the other
witnesses made a hue and cry. The people also gathered there.
Therefore, the accused ran away from the scene place.
H
7B4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A On witnessing this incident, P.W.2 immediately went to the
house of the deceased and informed P.W 3, the brother of the
deceased. P.W.3 came to the scene and found that his brot ~r
was gasping for his life.
Thereafter, PW-3 arranged for taking the injured to the
B Bhavanisagar Government Hospital, where first aid was given.
Then, on receipt of the message from hospital, P.W.7 sub-
Inspector of Police came to the hospital, recorded the statement
(EX.P21) from PW-1. The case was registered for the offences •
punishable under Sections 341and307 IPC. Since the injured
c was in a serious condition, he was taken to Coimbatore
Government Hospital by PW.3. On the way, the injured died. On
receipt of the death information Ex.P26, the Inspector of Police
P.W.18 took up investigation and altered the case into one under
Sections 341 and 302 IPC.
D
4. After that investigation charge sheet was filed. Since
the accused pleaded innocence, trial was conducted. Learned
trial court considered the evidence on record and placing
reliance on the evidence of PW2 rt.corded the conviction and
imposed sentence as noted above. It is relevant to note that
E PW 1 who was the author of the First Information Report (in
short the 'FIR') resiled from his statement recorded during
investigation. The trial court noted that though to certain extent
PW 1 departed from his statement during investigation, he
accepted that three persons including the deceased and PW2
F had gone to take bath but at that time the accused also came
bare. Before the High Court, the stand taken before the trial
court was reiterated. But the High Court did not find any
substance and dismissed the appeal.
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
G
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
H
KUNJU @ BALACHANDRAN v. STATE OF 785
TAMIL NADU. [PASAYAT, J.]
not have been recorded. A
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment.
7. As rightly noted by the trial court and the High Court
even though PW 1 did not support the prosecution version in B
toto, yet his evidence lent corroboration to the evidence of PW2
that 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.
7. It is necessary to refer to the pivotal argument of the C
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.
D
8. In Vadivelu Thevar v. 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 the first two categories this Court said
that they pose little difficulty but in the case of the third category E
of witnesses, corroboration would be required. The relevant
portion is quoted as under: (AIR p. 619, paras 11-12)
"Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established
rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and F
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. G
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 >
c oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist
Qn plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be
indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses."
9. Vadive/u Thevar case (supra) was referred to with
approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR
D 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
E "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
F 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.
10. The above position was highlighted in Sunil Kumar v.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2003) 11 SCC 367].
G
11. On analysis of the factual scenario and on applying the
principles of law stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that +
the appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sole eyewitness"Sign in to search