LexSURYANARAYANA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·t SURYANARAYANA. A \( STATE OF KARNATAKA JANUARY 3, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Evidence Act, 1872 : c Section 118-Witness--Oiild iritness-Competence to testifj~Evidentia1)' mlue of-Conviction based sole(v upon that evidence-Validity-Held: the evidence of child witness cannot be rejected per se-Hoirever, such evidence should be subjected to close scrutiny before its reception·-Corroboration of such testimony not a rule hut a measure of caution and prudence-Possibility of tllloring of child witness must be ruled out-On facts, conviction based D upon the sole evidence of child witness upheld-Penal Code, 1860, S.302. The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Penal Cod~, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. E According to the prosecution S had developed intimacy and extra- marital relations with the appellant-accused, as a result of which she gave birth to a male child. After the birth of the child, differences arose between the accused and S. The accused subjected S to cruelty and harassment. S, therefore, left the residence of the accused and started living F with her brother. On the fateful day S went to the village tank to wash clothes along with her brother's female child (PW-2) aged about 4 years. While S was washing the clothes, the accu5ed came and stabbed S with a knife resulting in her death. Immediately the child (PW-2) rushed to the house and informed her parents about the occurrence specifically mentioning that the appellant had stabbed deceased. The prosecution. case was mainly based upon G the statement of the child witness (PW-2) who was the solitary eyewitness. On behalf of the accused it was contended that it would not be safe to base the eonviction on the sole testimony of the child witness; and that there were certain discrepancies in the deposition of the child witness. H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 1 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The Evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statement and its reliability, base the conviction by accepting the statement B of the child witness. The evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded only on the ground of her being of tender age. The fact of being PW-2 a child witness would require the court to scrutinize her evidence with care and caution. If she is shown to have stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction C based upon her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal ci~umstances, would like to mix up what the witness D saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony E of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not. 14-H; 5-A-CI Panchhi v. State of UP., 1199817 SCC 177; Prakash v. State ofM.P., 119921 4 SCC 225; Baby Kandayanthi v. State of Kera/a, 119831 Supp. 3 SCC 887; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, 11996) 9 SCC 287; Da1tu f Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, 1199715 SCC 341 and State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixil, 120001 3 SCC 70, relied on. G 2. Under the circumstances of the case reliance could be placed upon the testimony of PW-2 which is found to be not suffering from any infirmity and is corroborated in all material particulars. 17-FI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. " - 522 of 1999. + From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.98 of the KarnatakaHigh Court in Crl.A. No. 65of1996. H Ms. Neeru Vaid (A.C.) for the Appellant. • SURYANARAYANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.