Supreme Court of India
RAVIversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1016
- Decided
- 5 September 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single, credible witness when the evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, and no statutory requirement for corroboration exists.
Summary
The appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for the killing of Albert Walter, based primarily on the testimony of PW‑1, the deceased's brother, who identified the accused and asserted that sufficient street lighting enabled him to see the incident. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that a single eyewitness, especially an interested one, should not suffice without corroboration and that identification was impossible due to lack of light. The Supreme Court held that the presence of street lights and the rough sketch confirmed adequate illumination, and that PW‑1's evidence was clear, cogent and reliable, making corroboration unnecessary. It reiterated that Indian law permits conviction on the testimony of a single credible witness unless a statute mandates corroboration or the circumstances demand it. The Court also noted the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which further supported the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness without corroboration.
- Whether the identification of the accused by the sole witness was possible given the alleged lack of light at the scene.
- Whether the interest of the witness (being the brother of the deceased) renders his testimony unreliable and necessitates corroboration.
- Whether the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act substantiates the prosecution's case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 134, s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(8), s. 302
Subjects
murdersingle witness testimonycorroborationidentificationinterested witnessIndian Evidence ActSection 302 IPCcriminal appealconvictioneye-witnesslight at crime scene
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 114
-;..
~
A RAVI
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
-
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Conviction under - Based
c on evidence of solitary witness - Justification of - Held:
Justified since evidence of solitary witness was clear and
cogent ·- Evidence - Solitary witness.
Criminal trial: Murder - Identification of accused - Plea
that identification was not possible as there was not sufficient
D light at the place of occurrence - Held: Not tenable - Eye-
witness 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- Courts below also referred to the presence of street
E lights in the rough sketch.
The Trial Court ordered conviction u/s.302 IPC on
the basis of evidence of PW-1, a solitary witness. Before
the High Court, appellants re-iterated the stand about the
non-sustainability of the evidence of PW-1; and that he
F 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.
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that
G
conviction should not be based on single witness's
evidence and that there was no question of having
.A..
sufficient light at the place of occurrence at the time of
incident and PW-1 could not have identified the accused.
H 114
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 115
OF POLICE
Dismissing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1. 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 8
Court and the High Court referred to the 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. [Para 6] [122-A-B] C
2.1. 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. [Para
0
8] [122-D-E]
2.2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute,
courts should not ins'ist on corroboration except in cases
where the nature of the testimony of the single witness
itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration E
should be insisted upon. [Para 8] [122-E-F]
2.3. 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 F
depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before
whom the case comes. 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. [Paras 8,9] [122-G-H; 123-A] G
Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1957) SCR
,.. 981; Joseph v. State of Kera/a (2003) 1 SCC 465; Yakub
lsmailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2004) 12 SCC 229;
Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and Ors. v. State of Kamataka H
1.16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
• •
A (2006) 11 SCC 323 and Kunju Balachandran v State of Tamil
Nadu (2008) 2 SCC 151 - relied on.
3. In the instant case, there was recovery under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. M.0.8 series, four
Vettu Kathis were recovered by the Investigating Officer
B on the basis of confessional statement of A-1. Looked at
from any angle the judgment of the High Court does not
'
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Paras
13,14] [125-8-C]
c Case Law Reference
(1957) SCR 981 relied on Para 10
(2003) 1 sec 465 relied on Para 11
(2004) 12 sec 229 relied on Para 11
D (2006) 11 sec 323 relied on Para 11
(2008) 2 sec 151 relied on Para 11
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 22 of 2007
E From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai in .
Criminal Appeal (MD) NO. 430 of 1996
WITH
F Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2007 r
B. Raghunath, Vijay Kumar, A. Mariarputham and Aruna
Mathur (for Mariarputham, Aruna & Co.) for the Appellant.
V. Kanakraj, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and
G Praburamasubramanian for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High
H Court. Two persons have filed the appeal and the appellant
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 117
).
~ OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Ravi was A-1 in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007, and Ravi, A
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 B
appellants before the High Court: A 1 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:
c
·, 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,
-y D
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 E
,
;/
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 F
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 Chand ran (PW3) in the light
shed by the electric light near the place of occurrence. P.W.1, G
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.
H
118 SUPRD11E COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A 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 ExP-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 copies of
B 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
c 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
D 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.0.3 blood-
stained earth, M.0.4 sample earth and prepared the mahazar
E Ex-P.3 in the presence of P.W.6 who attested it as a witness.
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.0.7 series. As
F 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
G 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
H corpse.
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 119
) OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1. An incised injury measuring 10 x 5 x 4 cm on the right A
cheek extending from the mouth upto the backside •
of the head.
2. An incised injury measuring 4 x 3 x 3 ems noticed on
the lower jaw.
B
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 ems on the
left side of the neck extending upto the back side of
the back. Its edges, muscles, blood-vessels, throat, c
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.
D
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.
E
8. An incised injury measuring 8 x 4 x 2 cm on the right
upper arm.
9. An incised injury measuring 5 x 3 x 2 cm on the
pelvic region.
F
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. G
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). H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A 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
B haemorrhage.
Since it became evident on investigation that offence had
been committed u/s 120(8) IPC, he has incorporated section
1?O(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
C 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
D 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
E 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 Selvam under Ex.P.26 mahazar. Then. he brought the
F 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
G 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
H
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 121
OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
requisition Ex.P.27 to the Court, to send the case properties for A
chemical examination. The objects were sent for chemical
examination along with the lette~ 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. B
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 c
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
D
...,, 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. E
3. Before the High Court the stand about the sustainability
of the evidence of PW-1 was re-iterated. It was highlighted that
he was brother of the deceased and therefore was interested
and a partisan witness. The High Court did not accept that plea F
--<(
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 G
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.
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A 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 presence
B 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
C 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
0
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
E number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute,
courts should not insist on corroboration except in
cases where the nature of the testimony of the single
witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that
F 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
G
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 tt1e case comes.
H
- }
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR
OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
123
9. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the A
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 ).
B
11. The position has been re-iterated in large number of
cases. Reference may be made to Joseph v. State of Kera/a
(2003 (1) SCC 465), Yakub lsmailbhai 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 c
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
0
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.
E
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. F
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 first two categories G
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)
H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A '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
B categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
c
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
0
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
E 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 case (supra) was referred to with approval
F 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
G 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
H be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 125
- } OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the A
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.0.8 series,
-i four Vettu Kathis were recovered by the Investigating Officer on 8
. the basis of co.o.f~_ssional 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.. c
D.G. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search