Kirpal Singh vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 312 – Criminal Trial – Oral Testimony

Criminal Trial – Oral Testimony – Quoted Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 : The court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way – it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. [ Concurrent murder conviction set aside as court found witnesses fall in the second category, i.e., wholly unreliable and no other tangible evidence was led by the prosecution to connect the accused appellant with the crime.]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *