Deciding Authority : The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges : R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas
Date of Judgement : 03/01/2000
Facts : Ms.Saroja, deceased had developed intimacy and extra-marital relations with the appellant, as a result of which she gave birth to a male child. After the birth of the child differences arose between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant started suspecting the deceased of having illegal connections with other persons. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Unable to bear the cruelty of the appellant, the deceased left the residence of the appellant 8 days prior to her death and started living in the house of his brother Ravi (PW1). On 22nd September, 1993 the deceased accompanied by Bhavya (PW2), the female child of Ravi (PW1), who was about four years of age, went to the village tank in the afternoon for washing theclothes. While she was washing clothes, the appellant came and stabbed Saroja with knife inflicting injuries on her neck, chest and other parts of the body causing severe bleeding resulting in her death. Immediately the child Bhavya (PW2) rushed to the house and informed her parents about the occurrence specifically mentioning that the appellant had stabbed the deceased.
Judgement : The whole of the prosecution case is mainly based upon the statement of child witness Bhavya (PW2). The witness was related both to the accused and the deceased .The court considering the evidentiary value of the testimony of a child witness stated that the testimony of the evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction statement of the child witness. The witness of PW2 cannot be discarded only on the ground of her being of Teen age. The fact of being PW2 a child witness would require the court to scrutinize her evidence with care and caution. If she is shown to have stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based upon her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal circumstances, would like to mix up what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not. The court to conclude relied on Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P. [1998 (7) SCC 177,Prakash v. State of M.P. 1992 (4) SCC 225, Baby Kandayanathi v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 287; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra 1997 (5) SCC 341). To the same effect is the judgment in State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit & Anr. [2000 (3) SCC 70]. In the above case the testimony of the child was accepted by the trial court as well as the High Court as no inherent defect was pointed out by the defence. Further more , The defence evidence produced in the case also does not weaken any part of the statement of Bhavya (PW2). This court did not take any contrary view and affirmed the findings of the High Court and the trial court.
Decision : The appeal is dismissed up upholding the judgment of the trial court and the High Court
Tejasv anand , IV th Year , Amity Law School , Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS