not counted. It is the quality of the evidence which is of significance and not the quantity. That is why Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act clearly lays down that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Hence, the testimony of solitary witness can also be a basis for conviction, if the Court comes to the conclusion that his testimony is true and correct version of the incident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Lallu Manjhi V/s. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 854 , in categorical words, laid down that “the Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court as to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness.” In this case, on careful analysis and appreciation of evidence of PW-12 Lalitkumar, we found his testimony to be wholly reliable, hence acceptable with no need of looking for corroboration to it.
