1,2, or 3 Witnesses?

How many witnesses do you need to prove or disprove a case?

1? 2? 3? More? Let’s find out.

What does the law say?

Section 134 of the Evidence Act states that:

“No particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact”.

Simply put, the parties have the liberty to call as many/few witnesses as they want.

For example, in criminal cases, the courts pointed out that the prosecution has no obligation to summon all witnesses to a case to come to court or to call all witnesses to prove a particular fact. This is because: 

1. It is up to the prosecution to plan their case- as long as the prosecution is doing it (i.e. no calling a particular witness) in good faith; and
2. If someone (suspected by the prosecution) will not tell the truth during witness examination, there is no point to call him in the first place- it will be counterproductive to the entire court process.

The why behind the what

Two witnesses are not, in most cases, better than one. AS noted by the court, quality is better than quantity. This was seen in the case of Khaw Cheng Bok & Ors v Khaw Cheng Poon & Ors, where the court held that:

“Section 134 [of the Evidence Act] follows the maxim, testimonia ponderanda sunt non numeranda, that testimony is to be weighed and not counted.… more regard is to be paid to the character of the evidence adduced in support of case than to the number merely of the witness who gave it; for the evidence of two respectable and credible witnesses is of more value than of a dozen witnesses of notoriously abandoned and profligate character….The weight to be attributed to evidence, testibus non testimoniis credendum est, depends upon the character and credibility of a witness more than upon the probability or improbability of his statements. The value of the evidence given is to commensurate with the honesty and truthfulness of the witness; evidence as to an improbable fact spoken to by a witness above all suspicion deserves and receives more weight than the evidence of a doubtful or incredible witness regarding a fact itself very probable”

What happens if one party chooses not to call a particular witness?

Nothing will happen and no adverse inference/ negative conclusion can parties who elect to not call a particular witness to testify- life goes on, and the case will proceed accordingly. 

Are there any exceptions to what we discussed above?

Yes. The exception kicks in:

1. When there is insufficient evidence to support a party’s claim and the party elects to not produce witnesses to back up his/ her claim;
2. When there are conflicting evidence and a particular witness is required to rectify the discrepancies/ conflict;
3. Where both parties withhold important witnesses that are material to the case as the particular witness evidence (if given) might be unfavorable to their case. 

And there you have it- if one person can win you the war, why spend unnecessary resources to summon an entire army?