# Ram Kishan & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 254
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1988
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Raj Beer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kishan-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44727
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
302/34 of IPC - Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Evidence of an interested witness - the
evidence of an interested witness should
not be equated with that of a tainted
evidence or that of an approver so as to
require corroboration as a matter of
necessity - The evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to
the deceased. In case the evidence has a
ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should be
relied upon. (Para 18)

Held:- All that the Courts require as a rule of
prudence, not as a rule of law, is that the
evidence of such witness should be scrutinized
with a little care. It has to be realized that
related and interested witness would be the
last persons to screen the real culprits and
falsely substitute innocent ones in their places
.The evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on
the ground that the witnesses are related to
each other or to the deceased. In case the
evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly
should, be relied upon (Para-18)
Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2019)10ILR A 254

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1988

Ram Kishan & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Ram Milan Dwivedi (A.C.), Sri A.B.N.
Tripathi.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri J.K. Upadhyay.

A. Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
302/34 of IPC - Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Evidence of an interested witness - the
evidence of an interested witness should
not be equated with that of a tainted
evidence or that of an approver so as to
require corroboration as a matter of
necessity - The evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to
the deceased. In case the evidence has a
ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should be
relied upon. (Para 18)

Held:- All that the Courts require as a rule of
prudence, not as a rule of law, is that the
evidence of such witness should be scrutinized
with a little care. It has to be realized that
related and interested witness would be the
last persons to screen the real culprits and
falsely substitute innocent ones in their places
.The evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on
the ground that the witnesses are related to
each other or to the deceased. In case the
evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly
should, be relied upon (Para-18)
Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs St. of
Guj. (1983) 3SCC217

2. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318

3. State of U.P. Vs Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 456

4. Bhagalool Lodh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (2011)
13 SCC 206

5. Dahari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256

6. Raju @ Balachandran & ors. Vs St. of T.N.
(2012) 12 SCC 701

7. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy &
ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298

8. Jodhan Vs St. of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52

9. Bur Singh & anr. Vs St. of Punj. (2018) 16 SCC 65

10. Sudhakar Vs St. AIR 2018 SC 1372

11.Ganapathi Vs St. of T.N. AIR 2018 SC 1635

12. Harbans Kaur & anr. Vs St. of Har. 2005
AIR SCW 2074

13. Namdeo Vs St. of Mah. 2007 AIR SCW
1835

14. Sonelal Vs St. of M.P. 2008 AIR SCW 7988

15. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 7
SCC 759)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of
impugned judgment and order dated
29.1.1988 passed by 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial
No.94 of 1987, convicting the appellants
under Section 302/34 of IPC and
sentencing them to undergo imprisonment
for life. However, they have been
2 All. Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs State of U.P.
255
acquitted of the charge under Sections
147 and 148 of IPC.

2. As per prosecution case, on
6.9.1986 a written report Ex.Ka.1 was
lodged by (PW-1) Dal Chand, alleging in
it that there was an old enmity between
the accused persons and the deceased on
account of a boundary (medh) of the
agricultural field and due to the said
dispute, on 6.9.1986 at about 6:15 am,
when his cousin brother Chokhey Lal was
ploughing his field, the accused persons
caused several injuries to him by Farsa,
Ballam and Club. While they were talking
to each other, accused Ram Kishan was
shouting for ensuring the death of the
deceased. After hearing the voice of
accused Ram Kishan, he along with his
brother Ram Singh (PW-2) and one
Lakkhi reached to the place of occurrence
and seeing them, the accused persons
entered into the sugarcane field. He states
that when he reached near the deceased,
he found him dead. Based on this report,
FIR Ex.Ka.14 was registered on 6.9.1986
at 9:30 am under Sections 147/148/149
and 302 of IPC against the present
accused
persons
and
two
acquitted
accused, namely, Tej Ram and Kalyan.

3. Inquest on the dead body of the
deceased was conducted vide Ex. Ka.7
on 6.9.1986 and the body was sent for
postmortem which was conducted on
7.9.1986 vide Ex. Ka.2 by (PW-3) Dr. M
K Srivastava.

As
per
Autopsy
Surgeon,
following injuries were noticed on the
body of the deceased:

1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm
x bone deep on the back of left side head 1
cm from left ear.

2. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep on back left side forearm upper
part front in direction.

3. Incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm
x bone deep on back of left forearm upper
part transverse in direction both bone cut.

4. Incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm x
bone deep on back of left knee joint
transverse in direction lateral anckle of
femur cut top lateral blood vessels cut.

5. Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on
outer side of left thigh middle part.

6. Abrasion 10 cm x 1 cm on
outer side of left buttock.

7. Abrasion 11 cm x 0.5 cm
outer side of left side abdomen.

8. Abrasion 8 cm x 0.3 cm outer
side of right leg middle part.

9. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x
muscle deep back of left corm middle part
vertical.

10. Incised wound 1 cm x 0.3 cm x
muscle deep on back of right arm lower
part.

11. Incised wound 4 cm x 2.5 cm x
bone deep on back right shoulder
transverse in direction upper and lateral
part of scapula cut. Body smeared with
mud front side at places.

Cause of death of the deceased was
due to coma.

4. While framing charge, the trial
judge has framed charge against accused
Girraj under Sections 147, 302/149 of
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IPC, whereas against remaining four
accused persons charge was framed under
Sections 148, 302/149 of IPC.

5. So as to hold accused persons
guilty, prosecution has examined seven
witnesses, whereas one defence witness has
also been examined. Statements of accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of
Cr PC in which, they pleaded their
innocence and false implication.

6. By the impugned judgment and
order, the trial Judge has acquitted accused
Tej Ram and Kalyan of all the offences, but
has
convicted
accused-appellants
Ram
Kishan, Sri Ram and Girraj under Section
302/34 and sentenced them as mentioned in
para 1 of this judgment. The trial Judge has,
however, acquitted the accused-appellants of
the charge under Sections 147 and 148 of
IPC. Hence this appeal.

7.

Counsel
for
the
accused
appellants submits:-

(i) that (PW-1) Dal Chand and
(PW-2) Ram Singh are not the actual eyewitnesses to the incident and when, on
6.9.1986 early in the morning they saw
the dead body of the deceased lying in the
field, they have lodged a false report
implicating the appellants. This has been
done by the complainant as there was an
old enmity between the two families.

(ii)
that
only
interested
witnesses, i.e. (PW-1) Dal Chand and
(PW- 2) Ram Singh have been examined
and the important witness Lakkhi has not
been examined.

(iii) that there are material
contradictions in the statements of two
eye-witnesses.

(iv) that on the same set of
evidence Tej Ram and Kalyan have been
acquitted and, therefore, there was no
occasion for the trial Court to convict the
appellants.

(v) that the witnesses have
reached to the place of occurrence after
the incident and, therefore, question of
seeing them the incident does not arise at
all.

(vi) that motive part has not
been proved by the prosecution as
required under the law.

(vii) that the postmortem report
of the deceased does not tally with the
statements of eye-witnesses because it is
not the case of the prosecution that before
committing the murder of the deceased he
was dragged, however, the injuries
sustained by the deceased suggest that he
was dragged.

8. On the other hand, supporting the
impugned judgment and order, it has been
argued by learned State Counsel:

(i) that a very prompt report was
lodged by (PW-1) Dal Chand. The
incident occurred at 6:15 am, on 6.9.1986
and at 9:30 am, FIR was registered
against all the accused persons. The
distance between the place of occurrence
and the police station is of 9 kms. and
thus, for all practical purposes, it can be
said that a very prompt report was lodged.
Learned counsel submits that there was no
occasion for PW-1 to lodge a false report
and he had hardly any time to think over
the same and then to lodge a false report.

(ii) that minor contradictions in the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are
2 All. Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs State of U.P.
257
required to be ignored considering the fact
that they are rustic villagers. While
referring to the postmortem report of the
deceased Ex. Ka.2, it has been argued by
the State counsel that the same duly
confirms
the
version
of
two
eyewitnesses.

(iii) that acquittal of Tej Ram and
Kalyan is though not challenged before
this Court but the same appears to be
contrary to the law. He, however, submits
that if some of the co-accused persons
have wrongly been acquitted, it will not
give any benefit to the present appellants.

9. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

10. (PW-1) Dal Chand, is the
informant and an eye-witness to the
incident. He is also a real brother of (PW2) Ram Singh and deceased Chokhey Lal
was his cousin. He states that there is a
common bund between his field and that
of accused Ram Kishan, Sri Ram and
Girraj. At the time of occurrence, he was
cutting fodder along with PW-2 in the
field, whereas deceased Chokhey Lal was
ploughing his field. All the five accused
persons reached there, carrying weapons
with them; accused Ram Kishan and Sri
Ram were having farsa, accused Tej Ram
and Kalyan were having ballam, whereas
accused Girraj was having club with him.
After hearing the voice of accused Ram
Kishan to kill the deceased, he and his
brother immediately rushed to Chokhey
Lal and tried to save him. Accused
persons were beating the deceased and
after seeing them, they entered in the
nearby sugarcane field. By the time, he
and (PW-2) Ram Singh could reach to
Chokhey Lal, he was already expired and,
thereafter he lodged the report.

In the cross-examination, he
states that prior to four years of this
incident, on the report lodged by accused
Tej Ram, a case was registered under
Section 325 of IPC against accused Ram
Kishan, Lakkhi and one Pooran and Raja
Ram. He however, has denied the fact that
he took any surety for accused Pooran or
Lakkhi. He has clarified that at the time of
occurrence, no one else was there in their
field and deceased alone was ploughing his
field. He states that at the time of
occurrence, he and his brother were cutting
fodder. In the lengthy cross-examination,
though this witness was subjected to various
questions, including tricky questions, but he
remained firm and has reiterated as to the
manner in which the deceased was done to
death by the accused persons. He has
clarified that before he could reach to the
place of occurrence, incident of marpeet
was already going on and then, he also
clarified as to which of the accused was
having which weapon and how the same
was used. No doubt, there are minor
contradictions in the statement of this
witness, but they are all of insignificant
nature and are required to be ignored
considering the fact that he is a rustic
villager.

11. (PW-2) Ram Singh, is another
eye-witness
to
the
incident.
While
supporting the prosecution case, he too
has stated that after hearing the voice of
accused Ram Kishan to kill someone
when he reached to Chokhey Lal, he saw
the accused persons beating him. He has
also clarified that which of the weapon
was being carried out by which of the
accused. When he and his brother reached
to the place of occurrence and tried to
help the deceased, then the accused
persons entered in a nearby sugarcane
field.
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the cross-examination, but for
minor contradictions this witness also
remained firm and reiterated as to the
manner in which Chokhey Lal was done
to death.

12. (PW-3) Dr M.K. Srivastava,
conducted postmortem on the body of the
deceased. He has clarified that injury nos.
2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 could have been
caused by a weapon like ballam/farsa,
whereas rest of the injuries found on the
body of the deceased could have been
caused by a club.

13. (PW-4) Birpal, is a Head
Moharrir who recorded the FIR. (PW-5)
Jaganpal Singh did initial part of
investigation. (PW-6) N P Singh, is the
Investigating Officer, has duly supported
the prosecution case. (PW-7) Charan
Singh, is a Police Constable, who assisted
during initial investigation.

14. (DW-1) Kamal Singh, has made
an attempt to prove that (PW-1) Dal
Chand and (PW-2) Ram Singh were not
having any joint account of the field and
likewise, there was sufficient distance
between their field and the field of Ram
Chand. Reading of his statement makes it
clear that the same is of no help to the
defence.

15. Close scrutiny of the evidence
makes it clear that on 9.6.1986 at about
6:15 am, when deceased Chokhey Lal
was ploughing his filed, accused persons
reached there and caused number of
injuries on his body by farsa, ballam and
lathi, resulting his instantaneous death.
After hearing the voice of accused Ram
Kishan to kill someone, eye-witnesses
(PW-1) Dal Chand and (PW-2) Ram
Singh reached to the place of occurrence
and saw the accused persons beating the
deceased. PW-1 and PW-2 have made an
attempt to save Chokhey Lal and seeing
them, accused persons fled away from the
spot and entered in the nearby sugarcane
field. By the time PW-1 and PW-2
reached to the deceased, he was already
dead. It can be said that there are minor
contradictions in the statements of PW-1
and PW-2, but they are not of significant
nature. These contradictions do not go to
the root of the matter and do not affect
their version otherwise. Yet another
aspect of the matter is that these witnesses
are the rustic villagers and they have been
examined in the Court after one year of
the
incident
and,
therefore,
minor
contradictions in their statements are
bound to be there. Law in this respect is
very clear.

In
Bharwada
Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, the
Supreme Court, while considering the
minor contradictions in the statement of
the witnesses, held as under:

"5 ... ... ... We do not consider it
appropriate or permissible to enter upon a
reappraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence
in the context of the minor discrepancies
painstakingly highlighted by the learned
counsel
for
the
appellant.
Overmuch
importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:

(1) By and large a witness
cannot
be
expected
to
possess
a
photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a
video tape is replayed in the mental
screen.

(2) Ordinarily, it so happens that
a witness is overtaken by events. The
2 All. Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs State of U.P.
259
witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an element
of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to
absorb the details.

(3) The powers of observation
defer from person to person. What one
may notice, another may not. An object or
movement might emboss its image on one
person's mind, whereas it might go
unnoticed on the part of another.

(4) By and large people cannot
accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or
heard by them. They can only recall the
main purport of the conversation. It is
unrealistic to expect a witness to be a
human tape-recorder.

(5) In regard to exact time of an
incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the
moment at the time of interrogation. And
one cannot expect people to make very
precise or reliable estimates in such
matters. Again, it depends on the timesense of individuals which varies from
person to person.

(6) Ordinarily, a witness cannot
be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which takes place in
rapid succession or in short time span. A
witness is liable to get confused or mixed
up when interrogated later on.

(7) A witness, though wholly
truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination made by the counsel and out
nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of
the moment. The subconscious mind of
the witness sometimes so operates on
account of the fear of looking foolish or
being disbelieved though the witness is
giving a truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it
is a sort of a psychological defence
mechanism activated on the spur of the
moment."

16. If the entire statement of these
eye-witnesses, i.e. (PW-1) Dal Chand and
(PW-2) Ram Singh is seen, it is apparent
that they are very firm and have reiterated
as to the manner in which, the deceased
was done to death by the accused persons.
The statements of these two eye-witnesses
also find support from the postmortem
report of the deceased Ex. Ka.2 and
number of injuries of the weapons used
by the accused persons have been found
on the body of the deceased.

17. We find no substance in the
argument of the accused appellants that
when Tej Ram and Kalyan have been
acquitted, the same treatment ought to
have been given to them also. Even
assuming that Tej Ram and Kalyan have
wrongly been acquitted, their acquittal
would be of no help to the accusedappellants because the evidence clearly
shows
their
involvement
in
the
commission of offence.

18. We further find no substance in
the argument of the defence that only
interested/related witnesses have been
examined, and the important witness
Lakkhi has not been examined.

It is settled position of law that
the evidence of an interested witness
should not be equated with that of a
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to
require corroboration as a matter of necessity.
All that the Courts require as a rule of
prudence, not as a rule of law, is that the
evidence
of
such
witness
should
be
scrutinized with a little care. It has to be
realized that related and interested witness
would be the last persons to screen the real
culprits and falsely substitute innocent ones in
their
places.
Indeed
there
may
be
circumstances where only interested evidence
may be available and no other, e.g. when an
occurrence takes place at midnight in the
house then the only witnesses who could see
the occurrence may be the family members. In
such cases, it would not be proper to insist that
the evidence of the family members should be
disbelieved
merely
because
of
their
interestedness. But once such witness is
scrutinized with a little care and the Court is
satisfied that the evidence of the interested
witness have a ring of truth such evidence
could
be
relied
upon
even
without
corroboration. Thus, the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the
deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy,
it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
(See Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7
SCC 318; State of U.P. vs. Jagdeo Singh
(2003) 1 SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr.
vs. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari
& Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256;
Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of
Tamil
Nadu
(2012)
12
SCC
701;
Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
& Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan vs.
State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 52)

The Supreme Court in Bur
Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab has
held that merely because the eyewitnesses
are family members their evidence cannot
per se be discarded. When there is
allegation of interestedness, the same has
to be established. Mere statement that
being relatives of the deceased they are
likely to falsely implicate the accused
cannot be a ground to discard the
evidence which is otherwise cogent and
credible. Further, the Supreme Court in
Sudhakar v. State and Ganapathi v.
State of Tamil Nadu relying in its earlier
judgments held as under:

"18. Then, next comes the question
'what is the difference between a related
witness and an interested witness?. The plea
of "interested witness", "related witness" has
been succinctly explained by this Court that
"related" is not equivalent to "interested". The
witness may be called "interested" only when
he or she derives some benefit from the result
of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in
seeing an accused person punished. In this
case at hand PW 1 and 5 were not only related
witness, but also 'interested witness' as they
had pecuniary interest in getting the accused
petitioner punished. [refer State of U.P. v.
Kishanpal and Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73] :
(2008 AIR SCW 6322). As the prosecution
has relied upon the evidence of interested
witnesses, it would be prudent in the facts and
circumstances of this case to be cautious while
analyzing such evidence. It may be noted that
other than these witnesses, there are no
independent witnesses available to support the
case of the prosecution."

Relationship is not a factor to
affect credibility of a witness. There is no
proposition in law that relatives are to be
treated as untruthful witnesses. To the
contrary, reason has to be shown when a
plea of partiality is raised to show that the
witnesses had reason to shield the actual
culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
A witness who is a relative of deceased or
victim of the crime cannot be characterized
2 All. Ram Ashrey Vs State of U.P.
261
as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates
that the witness has some direct or indirect
'interest' in having the accused somehow or
other convicted due to animus or for some
other oblique motive. A close relative cannot
be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He
is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however,
must be scrutinized carefully. If on such
scrutiny his evidence is found to be
intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and
wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based
on the 'sole testimony of such witness. (See-
Harbans Kaur and another vs. State of
Haryana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074; Namdeo
vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW
1835; Sonelal vs. State of M.P., 2008 AIR
SCW 7988; and Dharnidhar vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others & other
connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759).

19. Taking the cumulative effect of
the evidence, we are of the considered
opinion that the trial Court was fully
justified in convicting the accusedappellants. The impugned judgment and
order deserves to be affirmed and
accordingly, the same is affirmed.

20. Appeal has no substance, the
same is, accordingly, dismissed. The
appellants are reported to be on bail, they
be taken into custody forthwith to serve
the remaining sentence.

21. We appreciate the assistance
rendered by Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi,
learned Amicus, who has argued on
behalf of appellant no.1. The State
Government is directed to pay Rs.5000/-
to the Amicus towards his remuneration.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the concerned trial Court for
compliance.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 261

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2003

Ram Ashrey ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sampurnanand, Sri A.P. Singh, Sri
Amar Nath Dubey., Sri Md. Abid Ali, Sri
Ravi Shankar Singh, Sri Sachin Pratap
Singh.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate.

A. Code of criminal procedure 1973 -
Section 384 (Summary dismissal of appeal
), Section 385 (Procedure for hearing
appeals not dismissed summarily ) and
Section 386 Cr.P.C (Powers of the Appellate
Court) - that a criminal appeal cannot be
dismissed for default or as not pressed -
The Court has to decide the appeal on
merits and pass final orders - criminal
appeal, if not dismissed summarily and has
been admitted for hearing, must be
considered and disposed of on merits
irrespective of the
fact
whether the
appellant or his counsel or the public
prosecutor is present or not or even if the
appeal has been "not pressed". (Para 4 & 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
134 - Number of witnesses -no legal
impediment in convicting a person on
the sole testimony of a single witness - if
there are doubts and suspicion about the
testimony of such a witness the courts
will insist on corroboration- court to act
upon the testimony of witnesses - not