It could thus be seen that this Court in its celebrated judgment in the case of Vadivelu Thevarhas found that witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is “wholly reliable”, the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. Amol Singh in the present case has elaborately given the details of the incident. The medical evidence could only establish that the death was homicidal. However, it could not have been used to corroborate the version of Amol Singh that he has witnessed the incident. Further that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
[Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 7 SCC 157]