KUNJU @ BALACHANDRAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 16-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 
--1 
The prosecution case was that the marriage of PW~5 
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 
injuries all over his body. 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R 
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 
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 
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, 
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 
Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, 
is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. On 
analysis of the factual scenario and on applying the 
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 
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. 
> 
r-
t 
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 
-i 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') also was residing in 
the same Refugee Camp. Prior to the date of occurrence, the 
parents of the accused.arranged to get his marriage with Sel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.