RAMESHWAR vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

The Supreme Court held that the omission to administer an oath to a witness affects credibility but not competency, as per Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court established that while corroboration of a rape victim's testimony is generally required, it is not an absolute rule and judges must indicate their reasoning when convicting without corroboration. The ruling clarified that the necessity for corroboration applies equally to both adult and child witnesses, emphasizing that the judge must consider the advisability of corroboration in each case. The judgment referred to precedents including Mohamed Sugal Esa v. The King (A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 3).