Holding

A conviction may be based on the testimony of a single credible witness under s.134 of the Evidence Act, and PW‑1’s evidence was deemed reliable, so the conviction was upheld.

Summary

The appellant Vithal Pundalik Zendge and eight others were convicted of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.149 for the killing of the appellant's brother. The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, PW‑1, who was the sister of the deceased. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that reliance on a solitary witness was unsafe. The Supreme Court held that under Evidence Act s.134 a court may act on the testimony of a single credible witness without mandatory corroboration, and that minor inconsistencies in PW‑1’s statement did not affect its reliability. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial and High Court judgments and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness without corroboration.
Whether the evidence of PW‑1, the sister of the deceased, was reliable and sufficient to support conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 294
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 134
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 144, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murdersingle eyewitnesscorroborationEvidence Act s.134IPC 302criminal convictioneyewitness testimony

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 423

VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE A
y i- v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2007)

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
- .-4_, SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:
c
ss. 3021149, 144 and 148 - Murder - Plea that court
·should not rest conviction on the evidence of solitary witness
- HELD: In the instant case, the roles played by each of the
accused persons have been elaborately described by the
witness - Her presence on the scene of occurrence has D
been accepted - Deceased was her brother and accused
persons were known to her - Minor discrepancies in her
statement have rightly been held by trial court and High
-·~ Court of no consequence - Conviction and sentence upheld
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 134. E
Evidence Act, 1872:

s. 134 - Number of witnesses - HELD: As a general
rule, court can and may act on testimony of a single witness
though uncorroborated - Propositions of law in this regard F
culled out - In the instant case, testimony of sister of
·~.
deceased found credible - Penal Code, 1860 - s.3021149.

The appellant (A-1) and eight others were convicted
by the trial court, inter a!ia, uls 302 read with s.149 IPC G
for causing the death of the brother of PW-1 and
sentenced to imprisonment for life. Three of the convicts
-"'. appealed to the High Court, but in vain.

423
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

.A In the instant appeal filed by A-1, it was primarily
contended for the appellant that the evidence of t.he -r---.
solitary witness;, PW-1, did not ·inspire confidence and,
therefore, it would be unsafe _to rest the conviction
thereon.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
• - ";. ) ~. "' ~ ~
...... - ••v ... ~ .f ' w • .... • ' t '.- •, • ~i ,' . : ~

HELD: 1.1. The prineip_le .underlying s.134 of the r-;,_
Evidence Act, 1872 is that evidence has to be weighed
and not counted. It is not the number or quantity, but the
C quality that is material. The test is whether the evidence
. has a ring of truth, is ·cogent, credible and trustworthy,
or otherwise. On a consideration of the relevant
·authorities and the provis.ions of the Evidence Act1 the
propositions of law that emerged out as firmly
D established are: (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
E statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except
·in cases where the nature of testimony of the single
witness itself requires, as a rule of prudence, that
·corroboration should be insisted upon; and (3) Whether
corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or
F 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 ·y
the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case
comes. [Paras 6 and 9] [431-D-E; 429-E-H; 430-A].

G Jagdish Prasad vs. State ofM.P. AIR (1994) SC 1251;
Vadivelu Thevar vs." The State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614;
Joseph vs.· State of Kera/a (20.03) 1 ·sec 465; Yakub
1smailbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 12· SCC 229;
Bhima{YB Chandappa Hosamani & Ors. vs. State of
H Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC. 323. and Kunju @ Balachandran
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE v. STATE OF 425
MAHARASHTRA

vs. State' of Tamil Nadu (2008) 2 SCC 151, relied on. A

1.2. In the instant case, PW 1 has elaborately
described the role played by each of the accused. She
has stated that she was at a distance of about 12 ft. from
the place of occurrence. Her presence on the scene of 8
occurrence has been accepted. Since the accused
persons w~re known to her, a minute difference in the
distance is really of no consequence. lnspite of incisive
cross-examination, a few contradictions of very minor
nature have been elicited, which are not sufficient to C
throw out her evidence. Such discrepancies have been
rightly held by the trial court and the High Court to be of
no consequence. as she has been a witness of ghastly
crime of her brother's brutal murder. [Para 11, 12 and 14]
[431-G-H; 432-A; 433-B]
D
Case Law Reference:
AIR (1957) SC 614 Relied on Para 8
AIR (1994) SC 1251 Relied on Para 9
(2003) 1 sec 465 Relied on Para 10 E

(2004) 12 sec 229 Relied on Para 10
(2006) 11 sec 323 Relied on Para 10
(2008) 2 sec 151 Relied on Para 10 F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1026 of 2007.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 703 G
~ of2000.
Manish Pitale and Chander Shekhar A·shri for the
Appellant.

Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and "Gautam Godara for the H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
~ -;

A Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
B dismissing the three appeals preferred by the present appellant
r-.. . __
and tw0: other co-accused. Criminal Appeal No.703 of 2000
was filed by the present appellant while the co-accused Kisan
filed Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2000 and Milind Dhondu
Gaikawad ti.led Criminal Appeal 702 of 2000. The accused.
c persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 144, 148, 302 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, .1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The
appellant faced trial alongwith 8 others. Appellant was first
accused (A-1). The trial Court held that all the accused persons
D were guilty and they were awarded life sentence in respect of
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC and different other sentences which w.ere directe_d to run
j--
concurrently by the learne~ Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay
in Sessions Case No.248 of 1996. Only three appellants
E questioned the conviction and the sentence and three appeals
were disposed of by the impugned judgment as noted above.

2. Prosecution version which led to the trial of the accused
persons is essentially as follows:
·y
F On 15.12.1995 at about 2330 hrs. complainant Sahida
Shaikh (PW1) was going to Sulabh Sauchalaya (Public Toilet)
situated at Prabuddha Nagar Hutments, Suweree, Wadala,
Bombay-15. When she was passing near the house of Subhash
Kharkhare, she noticed Vitthai, Shiva, Krishna, Mohd. Ali, Nitin,
G Milind and Sandeep standing near the heap of garbage near
the said Sulabh Sauchalaya. The B.M.C. street light and the ;.
lights of nearby houses were sufficient for the purpose of
identification. She also noticed that Babu came out of the
house of Subhash Khandale keeping his hands around the
H shoulder of Yasin (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE v. STATE OF 427
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
• -f
they were talking and going towards the said Sauchalaya. She A
was at a short distance. The said persons who were standing
near the garbage heap, came near the Yasin and Babu. Then
Babu removed his hand from the shoulder of Yasin and started
abusing Yasin. Yasin objected to that. At that time Milind caught
right hand of Yasin, Sandeep caught left hand of Yasin, Nitin B
__..l-i caught head and hairs of Yasin from behind. Then Babu
removed a sharp edged weapon from under his pant and shirt
and started giving blo~s on the stomach of Yasin. Shiva, also
took out sharp edged weapon which he was hiding on his
person and said "Maro Sale Ko", and gave blows with the said c
weapon on the· stomach and different parts on Yasin. Vitthal,
Mohd. Ali and Krishna also gave blows with the weapons in
their hands. Yasin was shouting "Ma Bachao, Bachao", then he
went little ahead and fell down near Diamond Electric Store.
One taxi was coming from the direction of Hindu Cemetery.
D
Shiva, Vitthal, Babu, Krishna, Mohd. Ali sat in the said Taxi,
.... ~- threatened the driver of the Taxi, Nitin got down from the taxi
and said taxi'sped away towards the Jarbani Road. Nitin, Miland
and Sandeep ran away towards the Cemetery. Hearing her
shouts, her husband Mohd. Naseem, Subhash Khandare,
Salim, Naresh and other persons came running there. Salim E
and Naresh removed Yasin to the KEM.Hospital. She also went
to the Hospital with her mother and came to know that Yasin
had expired. EPR Constable Vishwas B. Sarate (PW15) was
on duty at KEM Hospital, recorded the report of said incident
~~.

which is at Exh.P-77 and passed on the information to F
PC22794 who was on duty at RAK Marg Police Station. PSI
Charge (PW12) who was Station House Officer on duty went
to the KEM Hospital, recorded the statement of complainant
PW-1 obtained running C.R. number which was 431/95, scribed
the inquest report of Yasin which is at Exh.P-22 [admitted under G
_,.l_) Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Cr.P.C.')]. Thereafter, police party visited scene of offence and
scribed the spot panchanama which is Exh.P-32. After returning
to the Police Station, he treated the statement of Bahida as
FIR, filled in the proforma of FIR (Exh.P-16A) and proceeded H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
'

A with the further investigation. .4'- ~

At about 8.20 a.m. on 16.12.1995, police also filled in ADR ,'
form, statements of Naresh, Salim ahd Amina. On 16.12.1995
the case was marked to P I Palele for further investigation who
recorded the statements of (i) Kallu Verma, (ii) Kailash
B
Bansode, (iii) Shankar Delara; (iv) Kishore Solanki; (v) Moh.
Nasim, (vi) Subhash Khandare; (vii) Mamud Bhatkar, (vfo) t-~
Aslam Mullu, (ix) Nagu'Chatu, (x) Salim Shaikh (xi) Naresh, (xii)
Fakir Shaikh and (xiii)
.
Amina
.'
' .
Yusuf. On
' .
16.12.1995
.
police
.
arrested accused No.6 Nitin Vasu Kadani and accused No.8
c Sandeep Sahadev Jaitpkar. On 17.12.1995, they arrested
accused No.2 Shiva 'vashvant Tambe. Accused No.5
Mohammed Ali lsmailAamadare, accusedNo.7 Milind Dh'ondu
Gaikwad. On 29: 12.1995, they' arrested accused No. 1 Vitthal
Pundalik Zondage, accused No.4 Viias. 8' Babu Bhagurao
D Shirke. On 15.01.1996, police recovered Gupti- (Art. M-8) at
!
the instance of accused No.1 as per the panchanama Exh.P-
42. On 16.01.1996, police recovered dagger (Art.M-9) at the j)
instance of accused No.3 Kisan Pandurang Gavli as per the
1
panchanama Exh.P-27. On 06.02. 1996 police sent all the
E muddamal articles to Chemical Analyst. P_olice received report
of muddemal articles which is at Exh.P-45.

On 12.2.1996 police charge sheeted all_ the accused
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Bombay
F as per charge sheet and on 26.2.1996 their case was ·r
committed to the Court of Sessions. Since accused persons
abjured guilt, trial was held.

The ·prosecutiOn has examined 15 witnesses many of
whom .are stated: to be eye witnesses; except PW-1 who is the
G sister of the deceased, others resiled, from their statements
made during investigation.
~
The trial Court after analyzing the evidence of PW-1 found ·
her to be a trustworthy witness and .relied on her evidence and
H rejected the plea of the accused persons that prosecution
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE v. STATE OF 429
MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ --+ version cannot be accepted only on the basis of PW-1 's A
evidence.

Questioning their conviction appeals were filed before the
High Court and as noted above the High Court affirmed the '

conclusions of the guilt and the ·sentences imposed.

-
B
>r 3. In support of the appeal, primary stand of learned I

counsel for the appellant was that even though the conviction
is maintainable on the basis of evidence of solitary witness that
witness's version must be free from any blemish. In the instant
case, the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence. c
Primarily it was submitted that when there is a solitary witness's
evidence it would be unsafe to rest the conviction thereon.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court. D
5. The law relating to the approach of the courts when
.A prosecution version essentially rests on the testimony of a
single witness has been highlighted by this Court in many cases.

6. On a consideration of tt:e relevant authorities and the E
provisions of the l'ndian 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
.._, . F
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 G
·~ 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. H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ; [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A (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
B case comes.

7. Ther~fore, 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.
c 8. In Vadivelu Thevar v. The 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
relia.ble, wholly unreliable and lastly, neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable. In the case of the first two categories this Court
D said that they pose little difficulty but iri'the case. of the third
category. of witnesses, corroboration would be required. The
relevant portion is quoted as under: -f..

'11. : .. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with the
E
quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary
for praying or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral
testimony in this context may be classified into thre~

F
categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.
.,
(2) Wholly '-'nreliable_.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
'

G · 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
H second category, the court equally -has no difficulty in ll
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE v. STATE OF 431
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
--y-+
coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, A
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 B
---; i
.-- insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will
be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.'

9. 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
c
' 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 D
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 E
Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of
truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."

,. 10. 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 lsmai/bhai Patel v. State of
F
Gujarat (2004 (12) SCC 229), Bhimapa Chandappa
Hosamani and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2006 ( 11) SCC ,
323) and Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu.
[2008(2)SCC 151].
,;
G
~ 11. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, the roles played by
accused persons have been elaborately described in detail.
She has described the role played by each of the accused

- persons. She has stated that she was at a distance of about
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A 12 ft from the place of occurrence. Interestingly, a suggestion
in cross examination was given that distance was about 20 ft.
In other words, her presence has been accepted. Since the
a
accused persons were known to her, minute difference in the
distance is really of no consequence.
B
12. She has deposed that she knew all the accused as
they were the residents of the same locality ~here she lived
since her birth. On 15th December, 1995 at about 11.30 p.m.
when she went to attend the nature's call near the public toilet,
she saw accused No.4 with her brother, the deceased. The
C accused No.4 had kept his hand on her brothers' shoulder· and
they were going towards ttie toilet. They were talking loudly and
accused No.4 was abusing her brother. Then .he started
assaulting her brother with a long weapon like gupti. All the
other accused were standing near the garbage bin. She was
D near the toilet. When accused No.4 was assaulting her brother,
all the other accused who were standing close by came near
her brother. They all also caught him and assaulted him with
weapons in their hands. Accused Nos. 7 and 8 caught his
hands, accused No.6 caught him by the hand, accused Nos.1,·
E 2, 3 and 5 started assaulting him with weapons in their hands
which were like gupti. This is in essence prosecution case.

13. She has further deposed that she was at a distance
of about 12 ft. from the place ofthe incident. She stood there
F and watched the incident. At that time the street lights were on
and there were 2 lights on the spot. She as well as her brother
shouted "Bachao Bachao". Nobody came for help. Her brother
fell down and the assailants ran away. A taxi came and accused
Nos. 1 to 4 fled in that taxi. She rushed to R.A.K. Marg Police
Station which was at a 5 minutes walking distance to meet the
G officer in 'charge. Her mother also came to the police station.
The police officer went to KEM Hospital. She returned to the
spot and found that her brother was not .there. She learnt that
he w~s removed to KEM hospital and she also went to the

H
hospital. Her brother had died. The police recorded her
-
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE v. STATE OF 433
MAHARASHTRA

statement in the hospital. That was treated as the FIR, marked A
Exhibit-16.

(
14. In spite of incisive cross examination a few
contradictions of very minor nature have been elicited. They are
not sufficient to throw out her evidence. Such discrepancies B
have been rightly held by the trial Court and the High Court to
be of no consequence as she has been a witness of ghastly
crime when in front of her, her brother was brutally murdered.

15. Above being the position we find no merit in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed. C

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

~·
...