RAVI versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 05-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 114 
-;.. 
~ 
A 
RAVI 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 
[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 
F 
non-sustainability of the evidence of PW-1; and that he 
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. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that 
conviction should not be based on single witness's 
evidence and that there was no question of having 
sufficient light at the place of occurrence at the time of 
.A.. 
incident and PW-1 could not have identified the accused. 
H 
114 
RAVI v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR 
OF POLICE 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
115 
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 
B 
Vettu Kathis were recovered by the Investigating Officer 
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. Raghun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.