It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and
not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
- Wholly reliable – the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness.
- Wholly unreliable – The court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion.
- Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.