Summary
The Court acquitted the appellant because the child eyewitness’s materially improved account, the unexplained non-examination of crucial witnesses and other investigative deficiencies made conviction unsafe. Child testimony requires careful scrutiny rather than mandatory corroboration in every case. The trial judge’s preliminary inquiry into the witness’s competence had also been inadequate.
Issues
- What inquiry and scrutiny are required before relying on a child witness’s evidence.
- Whether the child’s sole testimony and the remaining prosecution evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The judge was required to assess the child’s ability to understand questions, answer rationally and understand the duty of truth; the perfunctory preliminary inquiry was inadequate. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Section 4(1), proviso, Oaths Act, 1969The special provision for children under twelve did not apply because the witness was twelve when examined. Competence and understanding nevertheless required judicial assessment. (¶ 7)
- Section 114, illustration (g), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court drew an adverse inference from withholding available crucial witnesses, particularly the milkman who first heard the child’s account and could clarify the possibility of tutoring. (¶¶ 14, 16)
Held
- Before examining a child, the judge must ask suitable preliminary questions to assess understanding, rational responses and the duty to speak truth, and record the resulting opinion and reasons. Recording the questions and answers is advisable for appellate scrutiny. The three brief questions asked here did not adequately discharge that duty. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Corroboration of a child witness is a precaution rather than an inflexible rule. Susceptibility to tutoring does not itself justify rejection, but the evidence must be carefully examined for that possibility and for reliability. (¶¶ 8, 9, 16)
- The improved claim that the assailant lit a match while delivering repeated knife blows was difficult to accept. The first recipient of the child’s account was available but not examined, subsequent contact with relatives left tutoring unresolved, the appellant’s footwear did not match the collected impressions, and investigation failed to verify whether the child’s brothers were absent. Taken together, these deficiencies made reliance on the sole account unsafe. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The appellant alone was acquitted in this appeal, and the judgments against him were set aside. His existing bail bonds were cancelled. (¶¶ 1, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial and High Court judgments set aside as against the appellant, who was acquitted. His bail bonds stood cancelled.