LexVITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE versus ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 423
VITHAL PUNDALIK ZENDGE
A
y i-
v.
ST ATE 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---.
B
solitary witness;, PW-1, did not ·inspire confidence and,
therefore, it would be unsafe _to rest the conviction
thereon.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
•
-
";.
) ~.
"'
~ ...... ~
-
•• v
...
~ .f '
w
•
....
•
'
t '.- •,
• ~ i ,'
.
: ~
HELD: 1.1. The prineip_le .underlying s.134 of the
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
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
r-; ,_
·y
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]
Case Law Reference:
Para 8
Para 9
Para 10
Para 10
Para 10
D
E
AIR (1957) SC 614
AIR (1994) SC 1251
(2003) 1 sec 465
(2004) 12 sec 229
(2006) 11 sec 323
(2008) 2 sec 151
Relied onExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.