Let us try to understand this with section 139 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which was earlier covered under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The provision here clearly states that no particular number of witnesses such is required to prove a fact in any case.
This implies that when we talk about witnesses in a criminal case, the number of witnesses is not that matters. What is most important is whether the witness is reliable and whether the court can believe on what that witness is saying.
Suppose there is a case where only one person has witnessed the entire incident. If that person is reliable and the court finds that his testimony could be accepted, then the court can rely on his statement.
Whereas, in another case where there are n number of witnesses, but their statements are contradictory and they are unable to explain what actually happened, or their testimony does not fall in place. The court would never believe it.
So, the important question is not how many witnesses are present in a case. The actual question is whether their testimony can be relied upon.
The Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957) explained that witnesses can be divided into three categories.
Let us understand these three categories with an example.
1. When the Witness Is Wholly Reliable
Suppose Ram travels by the Delhi Metro every day. He usually takes the Yellow Line from Rohini towards Rajiv Chowk to reach his destination.
One fine day, while travelling on his usual route, Ram witnesses an incident at Rohini Metro Station. He sees A beating B in a very bad manner. Ram tries to intervene, but A threatens him. Unfortunately, B later dies from the injuries sustained in the assault.
Now, when the trial started, Ram appeared before the court and explained what he saw.
Here court will take these things into consideration, Ram does not have any personal connection with either A or B. He was simply travelling on his usual route when the incident took place. His presence at the spot can be established, and CCTV footage is also available. Further, there is evidence that A and B had a dispute earlier.
Suppose Ram gives a consistent statement and his testimony remains reliable even during cross-examination. There is no apparent reason for him to falsely implicate A.
In such a situation, the court may consider Ram a wholly reliable witness.
Now, do we need ten more people to come forward and say that they also saw A beating B? Not necessarily. If the court is sure that Ram’s testimony is reliable and is sufficient to establish the guilt of A beyond reasonable doubt, his testimony alone may be enough for a conviction.
This is the first category: a wholly reliable witness.
2. When the Witness Is Neither Wholly Reliable Nor Wholly Unreliable
Now, let us change the facts a little.
Ram is travelling on the metro and again claims that he saw A beating B. However, this time, evidence comes on record showing that Ram and A have had disagreements in the past. A frequently disturbs Ram during his metro journeys, and the two do not share a good relationship.
Now, does this mean that Ram is definitely lying? No, we cannot say that.
It is possible that Ram might had problem with A, but it is also possible that he actually saw the incident. Just because a witness has a strained relationship with the accused this does not automatically mean that his testimony must be rejected as a whole.
The court in this case will examine witness statement more carefully. It will consider whether Ram's version is consistent and whether other evidence supports or contradicts what he is saying.
For example, if there is any CCTV footage that supports Ram's account, it may strengthen his testimony. On the other hand, if there are serious contradictions in his statement, the court will have to consider those contradictions before relying upon him.
This is the second category of witnesses: those who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In such cases, corroboration may be required as a matter of prudence, depending on the circumstances. The court has to be careful before relying upon the testimony of such a witness to convict the accused.
3. When the Witness Is Wholly Unreliable
Now, let us consider the third situation.
Suppose Ram claims that he had witnessed A badly beating B. However, during the trial, it comes out that Ram has a serious personal dispute with the accused that is A and might have strong reasons to falsely implicate him. It is also discovered during the trial that Ram was not actually present at the metro station at the time of the incident, he was actually at his house.
Further, Ram and B are brothers, and the circumstances surrounding Ram's account do not match the other evidence available in the case, and cannot be considered to be wholly reliable.
Now, these facts may raise doubts on Ram's credibility.
If, after examining the evidence, the court finds that Ram’s testimony cannot be relied upon. The court will examine all other circumstances too before reaching that conclusion.
If Ram's testimony is still found to be wholly unreliable, the prosecution will need other credible evidence to establish the guilt of A. The court cannot simply say that Ram has made an allegation, and therefore A must be convicted for murder of B.
Conclusion
Section 139 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, makes it very clear that there is no fixed number of witnesses required to prove a fact. A single witness can be sufficient, provided the court finds the testimony wholly reliable and sufficient to establish the case.
At the same time, even if there are n number of witnesses, their number alone cannot prove the guilt of the accused if their statements cannot be relied upon or fail to establish the relevant facts.
As what matters ultimately, is the credibility of the evidence. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the court must carefully examine the testimony of the witness or witnesses available and also the surrounding circumstances before deciding whether the accused can be convicted.
As the law does not count witnesses. It only evaluates their evidence and credibility.