“CHILD WITNESS”

Case name: Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka

Testimony: She was the sole eye witness

Facts: testimony of sole eye witness, a girl aged 4 years at the time of the incident and 6

years at the time of her deposition before trial Court, that appellant inflicted fatal knife blows

on the deceased, held on the facts, truthful, was corroborated in material particulars and had

no inherent defect in it.

Held: Courts were justified in convicting the appellant under section 302 of IPC on the basis

of the child witness as a sole testimony

Verdict: Under the circumstances of the case and relying upon the testimony of this child

witness which is found to be not suffering from any infirmity and is corroborated in all

material particulars, the judgement of the trial court and the High Court have to be upheld
Case name: Dattu Ram Rao Sakhare v. State of Maharasthra

Testimony: Daughter of the deceased

Facts: Testimony can be a basis of conviction. The daughter of the deceased aged 10 years.

Her testimony can be relied on even without oath if she understood the questions and gave

rational answers therof.

Charge:

Held: a child witness if found to be competent to depose to the facts and reliable on such

evidence could be the basis of conviction. Even in the absence of the oath the evidence of the

child witness can be considered under sec 118 of the Evidence Act.

3.

Case name: Panchhi v. State of UP

Testimony: Child witness of the deceased family

Facts: Murder of four persons of a family by four assailants which included two ladies

Charge: Death sentence

Held: The law is that the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated more carefully and

with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others say

and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring

Verdict: Court laid down that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate

corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law.
4.

Case name: State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash

Testimony: Daughter of the deceased

Facts: Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of

imprisonment for life

Charge: Child rape

Held: The law is that the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated more carefully and

with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others say

and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring

Verdict: The evidence of the child and other evidence had been examined carefully and it had

been found that the reasons given by the HC for rejecting the said evidence was wholly

unconvincing. The judgement of the trial Court was restored and that of HC was set aside.

5.

Case name: Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat

Testimony: The child testified as a witness

Facts: This case is based on circumstantial evidence. Accused allegedly winning confidence

of the deceased girl prior to the incident. The accused was seen playing badminton with the

deceased and later on the night of the crime the accused carried the deceased on his bicycle.

The deceased was raped and she died a homicidal death.

Charge: Child rape

Held: For the appreciation of the evidence of a child witness, certain principles have been

evolved. Corroboration of the testimony of the child witness is not a rule but a measure of

caution and prudence. However, as a rule of prudence the Court insists that it is desirable to

have corroboration from other dependable evidence. Also, the prosecution relied heavily on

the child witness.

Verdict: The circumstances highlighted by the trial Court and analyzed in detail by the HC

unerringly point the accused as the author of the crime. So far as the last seen aspect is

concerned it has categorically state that the deceased was seen with the company of the

accused just before the time of death.

6.

Case name: Radhe Shyam v. State of Rajasthan

Testimony: The child witness (brother in law of the accused)

Facts: The appellant accused allegedly cuts the throats of his children with a blade, in the

house of his in laws, where he was staying for treatment. The incident was allegedly

witnessed by the brother in law of the appellant who is a child witness.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: The prosecution had suppressed the genesis of the case. The incident does not appear to

have happened in the manner in which the prosecution want the Court to believe it had

happened.

Verdict: Testimony of the child witness is not reliable. Evidence of other prosecution

witnesses not corroborating evidence of the child witness. Too many lacunae in the

prosecution case making the prosecution story inherently improbable.

7 & 13 are the same case in SCC

Case: Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat

Testimony: The child testified as a witness

Facts: A child of tender age was stated to have witnessed a ghastly occurrence where two

elderly people lost their lives because of murderous assaults by the appellant. The witness

informed her father that the two deceased persons were being assaulted by a wooden stick by

the appellant.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence

primarily rests with the trial judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack

of intelligence and the said judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose

his capacity and understanding of the obligation of an oath.

Verdict: Mere fact that the child was asked to say about the occurrence and as to what she

saw did not amount to tutoring .

8.

Case: Nirmal Kumar v. State of UP

Testimony: The child testified as a witness

Facts: Murder of five members of a family. The prosecution case was based on the child

witness who claimed to see the occurrence.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: The learned counsel of the State submits that the child must have been under shock and

she might not have remembered all the names and her presence at the spot is immaterial. The

prosecution relied upon the evidence of child should be examined cautiously and courts

should find some corroboration.

Verdict: The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant and Shyam lal were set aside

and both of them were set free. The prosecution evidence was not sufficient and therefore

entitled to benefit of doubt

9 & 10 are same in SCC

Case: Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab

Testimony: Child is a relative

Facts: The accused entered the room and declared that he would kill the deceased and

whipped out a knife and gave three successive blows with the knife. The doctor pronounced

her dead. The witness was in that small room when the incident took place.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: The learned counsel however submitted that there was every possibility of tutoring the

child witness. Whether there has been any tutoring or not has to be considered from the point

of the view of the nature of evidence given by the child witness and surrounding

circumstances.

Verdict: The evidences of all the witness including the child witness fully establishes the guilt

of the accused.

11.
Case name: State of UP v. Ashok Dixit

Testimony: Daughter of the deceased

Facts: Two accused entered the deceased house and killed him. The witness claims to identify

the accused and that she knows both of them.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: Testimony of the child witness should be carefully evaluated and should find

corroboration before being relied on.

Verdict: Held evidence of the witness not acceptable.

12.

Case name: Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar

Testimony: Daughter of the deceased

Facts: Husband charged with the murder of his wife by hanging. The entire case was hinging

on the evidence of the daughter of the deceased.

Charge: Murder trial

Held: In the absence of reliable evidence which would show that they had such knowledge. A

conviction under section 201 IPC cannot be based.

Verdict: Both the appeals are allowed. The order of the conviction and sentence passed

against them should be set aside. They will be set at liberty at once unless required in any

other case.
14.

Case name: Ravi Kumar v. Jhulmi Devi

Testimony: