STATE OF M.P. versus RAMESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 18-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1 
STATE OF M.P. 
V. 
RAMESH AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2005) 
MARCH 18, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and s. 302 rlw s. 1208 - Murder 
A 
B 
- Allegation that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 
murdered the husband of respondent no.2 - Prosecution C 
primarily relying upon testimony of PW1, the 8 year old minor 
daughter of respondent no. 2 and deceased - Conviction of 
respondents by trial court - Set aside by High Court - On 
appeal, held: Testimony of P. W. 1 is affirmed by the 
statements of other witnesses, proved circumstances and o 
medical evidence - Her deposition being precise, concise, 
specific and vivid without any improvement or embroidery is 
worth acceptance in toto - High Court completely ignored the 
most material incriminating circumstances which appeared 
against the respondents-accused - Findings recorded by E 
High Court were contrary to the evidence on record and thus, 
were perverse - Judgmeht of the trial Court restored. 
Witness - Child witness - Evidence of - Appreciation -
Held: Deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, 
but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court F 
and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the 
court may rely upon his evidence - The evidence of a child 
witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater 
circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring - Only 
in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has G 
been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully 
- However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored 
or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate 
court - Scope -Held: The appellate court being the final court 
of fact is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and 
review the evidence and take its own decision - Law does not 
prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise 
B of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its 
own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for 
presumption in favour of the accused - If two reasonable views 
are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the 
appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 
c 
Criminal jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence -
Held: Every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is 
proved guilty by the competent court. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.161(2); 313(3); 
D and proviso (b) to s.315 - Rule against adverse inference 
from silence of the accused - Held: Statement of accused u/ 
s.313 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration to appreciate 
the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case -
However, as such a statement is not recorded after 
E administration of oath and the accused cannot be cross-
examined, his statement so recorded uls.313 Cr.P.C. cannot 
be treated to be evidence within the meaning of s. 3 of the 
Evidence Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(3) -
Evidence Act, 1872. 
F 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 6 - Admissibility of evidence 
under - Discussed. 
Respondent no.2 lodged FIR stating that her 
husband 'C' died after falling during a spell of giddiness. 
G In respect of the same incident, another complaint was 
lodged by PW2 alongwith PW1, the 8 year old daughter 
of respondent no.2 and 'C', stating that responde11t no.1 
and respondent no.2 killed 'C'. 
H 
The trial Court held that the injuries found on the 
STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH AND ANR. 
3 
person of the deceased could not have been received 
A 
from a fall on the ground and convicted respondent No.1 
under Section 302 of IPC and respondent No.2 under · 
Section 302 r/w Section 120-B IPC, and sentenced them 
to life imprisonment. The conviction was set aside by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
s 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The evidence of a child must reveal that 
he was able to discern between right and wrong and the 
court may find out from the cross-examination whether C 
the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that 
the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. 
The· court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by 
putting questions to him and even if no such questions 
had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence as D 
to whether he fully understood the implications of what 
he was sayin

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