GOLLA YELUGU GOVINDU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 26-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 500 
A 
GOLLA YELUGU GOVINDU 
.-
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.556 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 26, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.304, Patt I - Pursuant to exchange of hot words and 
c quarrel, accused hacked his wife on her back and neck with a 
sickle which resulted in her death - Conviction by Coutts below 
u/s. 302 /PC - Challenge to - Held: On facts, appropriate 
conviction would be under s. 304 Patt I with custodial sentence 
of 10 years - Accordingly conviction altered. 
D 
s.300, Exception 4 - Applicability of- Discussed. 
,-
. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 118 - Testimony of child witness 
- Evidentiary value of - Held: Child of tender age can be 
allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand 
E questions and give rational answers thereto - However, Coult 
as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close 
scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof 
and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. 
F 
Words and Phrases -
"sudden fight" and "undue 
advantage" - Meaning of - In the context of Exception 4 to 
s.300, /PC. 
!'-' 
According to the prosecution, pursuant to an 
exchange of hot words and quarrel, Appellant hacked his 
G wife on her back and neck with a sickle which resulted in 
her death. On analysis of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, 
the two minor children of Appellant, and finding that they 
were corroborated by the evidences of PW1, the father-
in-law of Appellant, and PW7, the Trial Court convicted 
H 
500 
GOLLA YELUGU GOVINDU v. STATE OF 
501 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
-,.L-
Appellant under s.302 IPC and sentenced him to life A 
imprisonment. The High Court negated the plea of 
Appellant that PWs 2 and 3 were under the influence of 
PW1 and holding that PWs 2 and 3 had no reason to 
falsely _implicate their father, upheld the conviction. 
In appeal to· this Court, the conviction of Appellant B 
-
was challenged on the ground that no reliance should 
_. 
have been placed by the Courts below on the evidence 
of the two child witnesses, PWs 2 and 3. It was residually 
pleaded that offence under s.302 IPC was not made out 
since the assault was made during course of sudden c 
quarrel and Exception 4 of s.300 IPC applied. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not 
prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to D 
-'r 
treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, 
" 
Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons 
shall be competent to testify, unless the Court considers 
that they are prevented from understanding the questions 
put to them or from giving rational answers to these E 
questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, 
disease- whether of mind, or any other cause of the same 
kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he 
has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give 
rational answers thereto. [Para 7] [508-H; 509-A-C] 
F 
> 
1.2. The evidence of a child witness is not required 
to be rejected per se; but the Court as a rule of prudence 
considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on 
being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability 
can record conviction, based thereon. [Para 7] [507-C-D] G 
1.3. The decision on the question whether the child 
) 
witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the 
""· 
trial Judge who notices his manner~, his apparent 
possession or lack of intelligence, and said Judge may H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his 
. ""' 
capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of 
the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court 
may, however, be disturbed by the higher Court if from 
what is preserved in the records, it is clear his conclusion 
B was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because 
child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in -
a world of make beliefs. Though it is an established 
..... 
principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses 
as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, 
c shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that 
if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the Court comes 
to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, 
there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence 
of a child witness. [Para 9] (507-H; 508-A-C] 
D 
Surya Narayana v. State of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.