Single eyewitness testimony can sustain a murder conviction when wholly reliable; corroboration is not always required.

A murder conviction may rest on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness if that evidence is wholly reliable; Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require a fixed number of witnesses or general corroboration. Corroboration is needed only where the law so requires or where prudence demands caution, such as with evidence from child, accomplice, or comparable witnesses. The decision also notes that sentence depends on the circumstances of the offence and mitigating factors, and deliberate brutal murder with no mitigation does not justify interference with punishment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness; (ii) whether a court must insist on plurality of witnesses or corroboration in a murder case; (iii) whether the sentence imposed on the appellants called for interference.

Issue (i): whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness.

Analysis: The evidence was found to depend substantially on the testimony of the deceased's wife, whose account was tested in cross-examination and found to be reliable. The testimony of the other prosecution witnesses was not accepted as dependable, but that did not displace the sole eyewitness account. The Court treated the quality of the evidence as decisive, not the number of witnesses.

Conclusion: A conviction could validly rest on the sole testimony of the eyewitness, and the challenge to her credibility failed.

Issue (ii): whether a court must insist on plurality of witnesses or corroboration in a murder case.

Analysis: The governing rule under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact. Corroboration is not a legal requirement unless a statute so provides or the nature of the witness's evidence makes caution necessary as a matter of prudence. The Court distinguished cases where corroboration is traditionally sought because the witness is a child, an accomplice, or in an analogous position. It held that the proper approach is to assess whether the single witness is wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or in the middle category requiring caution.

Conclusion: There is no general rule requiring plurality of witnesses or corroboration in murder cases, and the Court was entitled to act on the reliable single-witness testimony.

Issue (iii): whether the sentence imposed on the appellants called for interference.

Analysis: The Court held that the nature of the proof does not govern punishment; sentence depends on the circumstances of the crime and any mitigating factors. On the facts, the murder was deliberate and brutal, and no mitigating circumstance justified reduction of punishment. The second appellant's conviction and sentence were also upheld as warranted on the record.

Conclusion: The sentence did not call for interference, and both appellants' convictions and sentences were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were found to be without merit, the convictions were upheld, and no interference with the imposed punishments was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may be based on the testimony of a single witness if that evidence is wholly reliable; corroboration is not a legal necessity unless required by statute or by the nature of the testimony as a matter of prudence.

---