Evidence is basically of two types – (1) Oral evidence (i.e., of the witnesses), and (2) Documentary evidence.
A criminal case can be proved by either type of evidence or a combination of the two. Some cases can be proved only on the basis of the documentary evidence itself, in the absence of oral evidence.
Therefore, it should be clear that it is not necessary to always have independent witnesses (who would generally give oral evidence) to prove a case, since in some cases oral evidence may not even be available and the case may be proved in the absence of such witnesses.
There are several cases which are proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence also, even though there may not be direct evidence in the form of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
There are cases (such as, for example, an offence of rape) where conviction may be possible on the basis mainly of the evidence of the victim only. Even in corruption cases, there have been cases where conviction has been possible mainly on the evidence of the complainant who is generally considered to be an interested witness, provided his evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and, more so, if there is some corroboration to his evidence.
Therefore, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Conviction in a criminal case may be possible even in the absence of independent witnesses, provided the evidence otherwise available is found to be reliable and trustworthy.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
