Acquittal Granted to Appellant Over Murder Charges: Lack of Corroboration and Deficiencies in Testimony of Minor Lead to Overturning of Conviction

Acquittal Granted to Appellant over Murder Charges: Lack of Corroboration and Deficiencies in Testimony of minor Lead to Overturning of Conviction

Court: In the Supreme Court of India

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 553 Of 2012

Case title: Pradeep vs. The State of Haryana                ... 

Date of Order: July 5, 2023.

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka      

Parties:

Appellant- Pradeep

Respondent- The State of Haryana 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS-

(1) Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

(2) Sections 449 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

OVERVIEW-

• The second accused in this case has filed an appeal challenging the judgment and order issued on January 12, 2009, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by both the appellant (accused no. 2) and accused no. 1 against their conviction by the Sessions Court.
• The Sessions Court had found both the appellant and accused no. 1 guilty of the following offenses: (1) Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), (2) Sections 449 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34, seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 449 read with Section 34, and one year of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• Both the appellant and accused no. 1, Devender alias Vikki, filed an appeal before the High Court, but it was dismissed according to the judgment being challenged.
• The First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on the statement of Ajay, who was 11 years old at the time. Ajay is the youngest of three sons of the deceased Bhanmati and Satpal.
• According to the prosecution's case, on December 30, 2002, Ajay and his mother were sleeping in their locked house. Ajay's elder brother was studying in Ghaziabad, and his second brother was staying with their maternal uncle. Ajay's father, Satpal, worked as a temple Mahant and lived near the temple, separate from the deceased.
• According to the prosecution, around 1 am, Ajay woke up upon hearing his mother's cries. He witnessed accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 grappling with his mother. Accused no. 1, Vikki, attacked the deceased with a knife, inflicting 6 to 7 wounds on her stomach and chest. Accused no. 2, the appellant, held his mother's hands.
• When Ajay tried to rescue his mother, accused no. 1 also injured him with the same knife. After the attack, both accused fled the scene through the window they had entered earlier.
• Ajay, fearing for his safety, hid inside the house. Around 5 am, a milkman named Surender, referred to as Golu by Ajay (PW-6), arrived at the house. Ajay came out and informed the milkman about the accused murdering his mother with a knife.
• The milkman reported the incident to Ajay's uncle, Rajinder Singh (PW-6), who came to the scene. Ajay's father, Satpal, also arrived. Injured Ajay was taken to the hospital, where his statement was recorded. Based on Ajay's statement, the police registered the FIR.
• According to Ajay's complaint, the accused had visited their house the previous day and untied their buffalo. When the deceased confronted them about it, both accused attempted to assault her.
• Ajay further mentioned that about six to seven months before the incident, the accused had trespassed into their family's field and damaged their crops. However, as the appellant's father apologized to Ajay's father, no formal complaint was filed.
• In addition to Ajay's testimony (PW-1), the prosecution presented two other witnesses: Rajinder (Ajay's uncle) as PW-6 and Dr. Varsha as PW-10, who had examined Ajay. The prosecution also called Dr. Arun Garg (PW-12) to testify about conducting the post-mortem examination on the deceased's body.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT-

• The counsel representing the appellant has carefully examined the evidence provided by the key prosecution witnesses. They argue that special caution must be exercised when assessing the testimony of Ajay, as he is a minor witness.
• The counsel emphasizes that Ajay's testimony lacks any corroborating evidence and is riddled with significant contradictions and inconsistencies. They assert that Ajay's testimony is unreliable.
• The counsel points out that, according to the prosecution's case, Ajay did not disclose the incident to anyone until the early morning hours. It was only when the milkman, Golu alias Surender, arrived at the house around 5 am that Ajay first disclosed the murder to him.
• Additionally, PW-6 claims to have overheard the milkman informing others about the deceased's murder. The counsel argues that the prosecution's failure to present the milkman as a witness undermines their case.
• They also question the presence of Ajay at the time of the incident, as the house was in complete darkness, making it highly unlikely for Ajay to have seen the accused.
• The counsel suggests that Ajay may have been coached or influenced in his testimony. Furthermore, they contend that the appellant's role was limited to holding the hands of the deceased while accused no. 1 attacked her with a knife.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT-

• The counsel representing the State, in defense of the challenged judgments, argues that there is no requirement for corroboration in order to sustain a conviction based solely on the testimony of a minor witness.
• They contend that the supposed contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the minor witness, Ajay, are insignificant and do not render his evidence unreliable. Therefore, the counsel maintains that there is no justification for overturning the conclusions reached by both courts.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS-

• We have thoroughly examined the arguments presented. The crucial aspect of this case hinges on the testimony of the minor witness, Ajay (PW-1).
• According to Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a child witness is considered competent to provide testimony unless the court determines that the child is unable to comprehend the questions or provide rational answers due to their tender age. With respect to the administration of an oath to a child witness, Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969, is pertinent.
• According to the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 4, it is stipulated that if a child witness is under 12 years of age, an oath cannot be administered to them unless the required satisfaction specified in the proviso is recorded. In this particular case, PW-1 Ajay's deposition indicates that he was 12 years old at the time of giving evidence.
• Hence, the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act does not apply in this instance. However, in accordance with the provisions of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the trial judge was obligated to record their opinion regarding the child's ability to comprehend the questions posed to them and provide rational answers.
• Furthermore, the trial judge must also document their opinion regarding the child witness's understanding of the duty to speak the truth, along with an explanation as to why they believe the child understands this duty.
• Prior to recording the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether the minor comprehends the questions asked and is capable of providing logical answers.
• The judge must ensure that the minor understands the questions and is capable of responding to them, as well as comprehends the importance of telling the truth. Thus, the role of the judge who records the evidence is of utmost significance.
• They must conduct a thorough initial examination of the minor by asking appropriate questions to assess their understanding and ability to provide rational answers. It is advisable to document the preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can review the accuracy of the Trial Court's opinion.
• According to the prosecution's claim, footprints believed to belong to the accused were found near the location of the incident.
• The prosecution collected molds of these footprints, as testified by PW-6. The footwear worn by both accused individuals was seized in the presence of PW-6. However, it was discovered that the shoes worn by the present appellant did not match the molds obtained from the shoe imprints collected by the prosecution.

CONCLUSION-

• In addition to the failure to examine the milkman, PW-11 Mehar Singh, who could have provided crucial information, the investigating officer did not conduct an investigation by obtaining statements from Ajay's elder brothers to verify their whereabouts on the date of the incident.
• Upon careful examination of the evidence provided by PW-1 Ajay and considering previous observations, the possibility of the witness being coached or influenced cannot be dismissed.
• There is a lack of support or corroboration for PW-1 Ajay's testimony, along with other deficiencies in the prosecution's case as previously highlighted.
• Given the circumstances of the case, it would be unsafe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of PW-1 Ajay, which does not inspire confidence.
• Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgments dated January 12, 2009, and the Trial Court's judgment dated January 31, 2005, are overturned, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges brought against him. As the appellant is currently on bail, his bail bonds are now canceled.