Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 and Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration. This submission of the learned Counsel is, therefore, rejected.