Summary
The Court acquitted three appellants convicted of dacoity with murder, including one sentenced to death. Material inconsistencies made the child eyewitness’s account unsafe to rely on. Knife recovery and disputed neighbourhood evidence did not establish the first appellant’s guilt, while inadequately proved fingerprint evidence and first-time dock identification could not sustain the convictions of the other two.
Issues
- Whether the child eyewitness’s testimony was sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction.
- Whether the remaining recovery, neighbourhood and fingerprint evidence established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held
- A child’s evidence cannot be rejected merely because of age. Careful scrutiny is required; corroboration is a matter of caution and prudence rather than an inflexible rule. Here, material omissions and inconsistencies concerning the initial disclosure, investigation and alleged assault on the surviving child made reliance unsafe. (¶ 22–26)
- The knife recovery and evidence of the first appellant’s presence nearby were insufficient in the circumstances. The alleged telephone call was not linked to him, the times did not match, and the neighbourhood witness’s account contained inconsistencies. He was entitled to benefit of doubt. (¶ 27–28)
- The prosecution did not examine the person who lifted the fingerprints or establish his competence, the method used, preservation or the handling of the material. Those gaps made reliance on the fingerprint report extremely difficult. (¶ 29–32)
- Even assuming the fingerprints were attributable to the other two appellants, they could not, without substantive evidence linking them to the crime, sustain conviction here. They were strangers to the child, underwent no test identification and were first identified in court. Both received benefit of doubt. (¶ 33–35)
- Having found all three appellants entitled to acquittal on the evidence, the Court did not decide the separate submission concerning conviction under Section 396 after three of the six named accused had been acquitted. (¶¶ 20(d), 36)
Result
Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside and all three appellants acquitted of all charges; release directed unless custody was required in another offence.