Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On The Testimony Of A Wholly Unreliable Witness: SC
📌 Principle Laid Down by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a witness who is wholly unreliable or whose credibility is seriously doubtful.
This principle safeguards the accused’s right to a fair trial and prevents miscarriage of justice.
⚖️ Legal Basis
Section 134 of the Evidence Act – While this section deals with the admissibility of oral evidence, it also implicitly requires that the evidence be credible and trustworthy to form the basis of conviction.
Section 165 CrPC – Empowers the court to use discretion in appreciating evidence. The court can reject the testimony of a witness if it is inconsistent, improbable, or unreliable.
Criminal Procedure Principles – Courts must ensure that conviction is based on credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence, especially when the witness is the sole evidence.
📚 Important Case Laws
State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (SC, 2003)
The SC observed that no conviction can be based solely on a witness whose evidence is found to be inherently unreliable.
Even if the witness is part of the investigation, inconsistencies or motives to falsify reduce credibility.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 1984)
Laid down the principle of corroboration: if a witness is the sole basis of conviction, their testimony must be clear, consistent, and trustworthy.
Any material contradiction or improbability can render the testimony insufficient.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (SC, 1996)
Held that a “wholly unreliable” witness cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The court must look for corroborative evidence, either documentary or testimonial, to support the case.
Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 2010)
Reiterated that courts should scrutinize the reliability of witnesses, particularly in sexual assault cases.
A witness with a motive to falsely implicate the accused cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
📝 Court’s Observation & Reasoning
The credibility of a witness is paramount.
A wholly unreliable witness may include someone who:
Gives inconsistent statements,
Has a vested interest or bias,
Is motivated by revenge or personal gain.
Sole reliance on such a witness violates the principle of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Conviction must ideally be supported by corroborative evidence—either physical, documentary, or through other witnesses.
✅ Significance of the Ruling
Protection Against False Convictions: Prevents individuals from being punished based on fabricated or unreliable testimony.
Promotes Judicial Prudence: Courts are reminded to carefully evaluate the credibility and motives of witnesses.
Strengthens Fair Trial Principles: Ensures that conviction is based on trustworthy, corroborated evidence.
📌 Summary
Rule: Conviction cannot be based solely on a wholly unreliable or discredited witness.
Requirement: Independent corroboration is necessary when the witness’s credibility is doubtful.
Objective: Prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold the fundamental right to a fair trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments