Reliance on Testimony of a Sole Eyewitness
Share on:
Introduction
In the realm of criminal justice, eyewitness testimony plays a crucial role in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. Sole eyewitness offers a unique perspective into the details of the crime as they provide a firsthand account of events. The question of whether a person can be convicted based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is reiterated on various occasions by the Supreme Court of India. In this article, various remarkable judgments are discussed in which the top Court highlighted certain factors that ensure the validity of sole eyewitness testimony.
Remarkable Judgments Related to the Testimony of Sole Eyewitness
- State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (January 16, 1996)
In this case, the Supreme Court (SC) held that the prosecutrix was a reliable and trustful witness as her testimony had no infirmity or blemish. It added, “We have no hesitation in acting upon her testimony alone without looking for any corroboration.”
The prosecutrix, in this case, was a young girl below sixteen years of age and was studying in the 10th class. On the way to her maternal Uncle’s house after taking a test in Geography, a blue Ambassador car driven by a Sikh youth aged 20/25 years came from behind and stopped near her. Three accused were sitting in the car, Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh, and Ranjit Singh. One of the three accused came out of the car and caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arm and forcibly pushed her into the car. They drove her to the Kotha of the Tubewell and committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. After investigation, all the accused were charged with offences under Section 363, Section 366, Section 368, and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was first heard by the Trial Court which disbelieved the version of the prosecutrix regarding rape and passed the judgment of acquittal of the accused. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court bench.
Convicting the three accused Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable, Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.”
- State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary (October 30, 2018)
In this case, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment therefore, the accused approached the High Court. The HC overturned the decision of the trial court. The prosecution presented 7 witnesses and various documents to establish the guilt of the accused. He claimed that the prosecutrix was of bad character and alleged false rape allegations. Further, the case was mentioned before the top Court. The SC held that “It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the ‘probabilities factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming.”
- Amar Singh vs. the State (NCT of Delhi) (October 12, 2020)
In this case, while giving a benefit of doubt to the accused person convicted by the trial court, the SC stated that the conviction can be based on the sole eyewitness’s testimony so long he/she is found to be wholly reliable. The bench also held that the “finding of guilt of the two accused-appellants recorded by the two Courts is based on the sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye 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 Evidence Act, 1872.”
- Ganesan vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police (October 14, 2020)
In this case, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under POCSO Act and the SC held that the sole eyewitness (victim) is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality.
- Phool Singh vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (December 01, 2021)
When the husband of the victim/prosecutrix went to another village and she was alone and she was sleeping in her room, the accused jumped the wall and entered the room of the prosecutrix. Seeing the accused the prosecutrix woke up and in the light of the bulb she identified the accused. Then the accused committed rape and thereafter he fled away by jumping the wall. One of the contentions raised during the court proceedings by the rape accused was that the case of the prosecution solely depends upon the deposition of the rape victim and no other independent witnesses were examined. The case was committed to the learned Court of Sessions and the accused pleaded not guilty; therefore, he came to be tried for the aforesaid offence. The trial Court and High Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC, relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix/victim. The accused further approached the SC where the top Court upheld the conviction ordered by the lower courts stating that “there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.”
Conclusion
Reliance on the testimony of a sole eyewitness is a well-established principle whereas the absence of a rule mandating corroboration emphasizes the credibility placed on the prosecutrix account. In some cases, Medical evidence may be required, however, we can say that if the sole eyewitness is a true witness and gives a steady testimony. The sole eyewitness can help the courts deliver justice.
