If a case only has witness and no material evidence, it can't be won. But there are special exceptions. For example, in a case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can produce any evidence. At this time, if you have witnesses, you will definitely have an advantage and the probability of winning the case will be even greater. But in general, it is useless to have only witnesses without any physical evidence, unless this special situation is encountered.

If you can only produce a witness in a case, if the other party has physical evidence to refute it, it must be that you will fall behind, so you must also look for evidence that is beneficial to you at this time. Because in law, it is not excluded that someone will commit perjury. If there is no physical evidence or documentary evidence to support the witness's confession, the authenticity of this testimony is actually to be verified, and naturally there is no way to use it as very conclusive evidence.

If you decide to defend your rights through the above, then before that, we should be prepared, and collecting evidence is a very important link. When collecting evidence, we should not only collect witness statements that are beneficial to us, but also collect all kinds of physical evidence and sometimes collect some documentary evidence that is beneficial to us. But when we have more evidence, the probability of winning the appeal will be greater.

Usually, in a case, the status of the witness will be lower, while the status of the material evidence will be higher, because the material evidence exists objectively and will not lie. But people are different, because as we all know, people themselves are actually very complicated animals, and they may commit perjury for the benefit. So generally speaking, in a case, if you can produce physical evidence, it is naturally better than a witness, but when both sides do not produce physical evidence, the role of witness is also great.