STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SHANTAPPA MADIVALAPPA GALAPUJI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 20-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 729 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
SHANTAPPA MADIVALAPPA GALAPUJI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2005) 
APRIL 20, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.118 - Testimony of child witness 
A 
B 
- Conviction by trial court based on evidence of child witness C 
- Acquittal by High Court discarding such evidence - On 
appeal, Held: Trial court recorded that the child was capable 
of understanding the questions put to· him and was capable 
of giving rational answers to those questions and was 
competent to testify before Court - High Court did not indicate 
D 
why reasoning of trial court was deficient - Matter remanded 
to High Court for consideration afresh - Appeal against 
acquittal. 
The High Court discarded the evidence of child 
E 
witness and reversed the order of conviction passed by 
trial court. Hence the appeal against acquittal. 
--
!' 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court failed to notice that the 
Additional Sessions Judge referred to alt relevant aspects 
in detail. It was recorded that when the Court had put 
preliminary questions to the child who appeared to be of 
F 
tender age, it was revealed that the witness was capable 
G 
of understanding the questions put to him and was 
. capable of giving rational answers to those questions. He 
knew the difference between the truth and the falsehood 
and knew that only truth has to be deposed before the 
729 
H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A Court. He also knew the consequences of deposing 
falsely. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the 
witness was competent to testify before the Court. [Para 
4] [734-0-G] 
8 
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and Ors. v. State of 
Maharashtra 2008 (12) SCC 565 and Golla Yelugu Govindu 
v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008(4) SCALE 569, relied on. 
2. The Evidence Act, 1872 does not prescribe any 
particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness 
C 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 questions, 
D 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. Therefore without even 
E indicating as to how conclusions of the trial court were 
in any manner deficient or insufficient, the High Court 
ought not to have, on abrupt conclusions, directed 
acquittal. [Paras 6 and 9] [735-A-C; 736-E-F] 
Suryanarayana v. State of Kamataka 2001 (9) SCC 129; 
F Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 
341 and Ratansingh Da/sukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat 
2004 (1) sec 64, relied on. 
G 
H 
Wheeler v. Unites States (159 US 523), referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (12) sec 565 
2008(4) SCALE 569 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 5 
Para 5 
-
;. .. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANTAPPA MADIVALAPPA 
731 
GALAPUJI & ORS. 
____,, 
.. 
2001 (9) sec 129 
relied on 
Para 6 
A 
(1997) s sec 341 
relied on 
Para 7 
2004 (1) sec 64 
relied on 
Para 8 
159 us 523 
referred to 
Para 6 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 203 of 2005. 
> 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.08.2003 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal.No. 85 of c 
2000. 
Anil Kr. Mishra, Rohen Singh, Nishant Mishra and Aditya 
Jain (for Sanjay R. Hadge) for the Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija (AC.) and Ramesh Chandra Pandey 
D 
,. 
~ 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
E 
by the State of Karnataka to the judgment of a Division Bench 
of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the 
respondents. Four respondents faced trial for alleged 
-
~ 
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
short the 'IPC') and were sentenced by learned II Additional 
F 
Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The High Court by the impugned 
judgment has set aside the conviction. 
2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as 
follows: 
G 
... 
). 
The complainant is the native of Biraladinni village in 
. .,. 
Basavanabagewadi Talu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.