PANCHHI AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 19-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PANCHHI AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 19, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI CJI, K.T. THOMAS AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Oiminal Law : 
C 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Accused i11cludi11g two 
D 
E 
ladie5~Murdeli11g family of four i11cluding child of 5 year.1~Award of Death 
Sentence by Sessions Cowt-Conjinned by High Cowt~Evidence of attacks 
and cou11ter attacks betwee11 the families plior to the i11cident. possibility of 
more ski1111ishes in the past leadi11g to Ve11gla11ce-Hcld, award of altemative 
se11te11ce of implisonment for life adequate. 
Co11victio11 of appellants by Sessions Cowt-Prosecutio11 relying on a 
child wit11ess a11d two 11eighbmm'-Findi11g of oial cowt regarding reliability 
of testimony-Co1;ft11ned by High Cowt-Held, no scope for e1mr in apprecia-
tio11 of evidence-Appellants cannot escape co11viction. 
Indian Evidence Act, 
187~Evidence of child wit11css-Aged 5 
yem:'!-Son of the deceased-Whether could be relied on--Held, the evidence 
of child to be evaluated with greater circumspection. 
The appellants who had been living adjacent to the house of the 
F 
d~~eased were on inimical terms and underwent petty quarrels. A fortnight 
prior to the incident the appellants 2 and 3 had a fight with deceased P. 
Thereafter the appellants armed with weapons like kulhadi and hansia 
barged into the house of the deceased and killed all the four deceased 
including their five year old daughter. Both the Trial Court and the High 
G Court concurrently found that the four deceased were murdered by the 
four accused out of which one died during trial. Both the Courts held that 
in the brutal nature of the perpetration of the murders, extreme penalties 
should be imposed and hence death sentence was confirmed. The Trial 
Court as well as the High Court ~elied on P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5. 
H 
Before this Court the appellants contended that it is very risky to 
40 
_> 
.. ..-
-
PANCHHI v. STATE 
41 
place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 being a child witness; that the A 
evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence and that the 
imposition of extreme penalty for all the accused was not legally justified 
in this case since among the three persons one is a septuagenarian, and 
other a youth in his prime age and the third a mother with a suckling child, 
since this case did not project any special feature as distinguished from 
under brutal murder cases inspite of the number of victims being four 
including a child; and that the number of victims is not sufficient to make 
the case so special as to foreclose the next alternative sentence i.e. im-
prisonment for life. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. P.Ws. 3 and 5 were admittedly neighbours. The fact that 
B 
c 
they did not see all what happened inside the house of the deceased is no 
reason to take their evidence lightly because when they saw all the appel-
lants sitting inside the house var!ously armed and they also saw that all of 
them returning from the house after che incident with blood soaked D 
weapons it is correct that the High Court has rightly concurred with the 
findings of the Trial Court regarding reliability of the testimony of the three 
witnesses. There is no scope to contend that there was any serious error in 
the appreciation of the evidence. [ 45-G-H] 
2. The law is that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated 
more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is suscep-
tible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus a child witness is an 
easy prey to tutoring. Courts have laid down that evidence of a child witness 
must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of 
practical wisdom than law. [45-C-D] 
f!rakash & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1992] 4 SCC 225; Baby, 
Kandayanathil v. State of Kera/a, [1993] Suppl. 3 SCC 667; Raja Ram Yadav 
& Others v. State of Bihar, AIR (1996) SC 1613 and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare 
and Others v. State of Maharashtra, [1997] 5 SCC 341, referred to. 
5. Brutality of the manner in which a murder was perpetrated may be 
a ground but not the sole criterion for judging whether the case is one of 
E. 
F 
G 
the 'rarest of rare cases' as indicated in Bachan Singh 's case. In a way every 
murder is brutal, and the difference between one from the other may be one 
account of mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the murder. The H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A incidents which happ

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