Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony of Child Witness

The Supreme Court, in the case of Pradeep vs. The State of Haryana, overturned the conviction of the appellant for murder, ruling that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The case primarily relied on the testimony of a child witness, which the Court found to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Pradeep, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Bhanmati, based on the testimony of her minor son, Ajay (PW-1). The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this conviction, following which the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

According to the prosecution, on the night of December 30, 2002, at about 1 AM, Ajay and his mother were asleep at home. Ajay alleged that the appellant and co-accused Devender alias Vikki entered the house through a window. While the appellant held his mother’s hands, Vikki stabbed her multiple times with a knife. When Ajay tried to intervene, he was also injured. The accused then fled through the window.

Ajay claimed that he hid in the house until 5 AM, when a milkman, Surender (Golu), arrived. He disclosed the incident to the milkman, who informed Ajay’s uncle, Rajinder Singh (PW-6). Subsequently, the police were notified, and an FIR was registered.

Trial Court and High Court Convictions

The Sessions Court convicted Pradeep and Vikki under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention) and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
They were also convicted under Section 449 IPC (house trespass) and Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt with a weapon).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their appeal and upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Pradeep then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the testimony of a child witness (Ajay) was reliable enough to sustain a conviction.
Whether the failure to examine the milkman (Surender) as a witness weakened the prosecution’s case.
Whether there was sufficient corroboration for the prosecution’s version of events.

Arguments by the Appellant (Pradeep)

The appellant’s counsel contended:

Ajay’s testimony was unreliable as he was a minor and there was no corroborating evidence.
The prosecution failed to examine Surender (Golu), the milkman, who was the first person Ajay spoke to after the incident.
There was no forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene.
Ajay’s claim that he recognized the accused by the light of a matchstick was improbable and an afterthought.
The shoeprints found at the crime scene did not match Pradeep’s footwear.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Haryana)

The prosecution maintained that:

Ajay’s testimony was credible and consistent.
There was no legal requirement for corroboration if a witness’s statement was trustworthy.
The delay in informing the police was understandable as Ajay was a minor and was in shock.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, carefully examined the evidence and found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

1. Child Witness Testimony Must Be Scrutinized with Caution

The Court observed:

“A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. While corroboration is not mandatory, scrutiny of the testimony is necessary to rule out the possibility of tutoring.”

The Court noted that Ajay’s statement contained several contradictions, making it unreliable.

2. Failure to Examine Key Witness (Milkman)

The Court held that the milkman, Surender, was the first person to whom Ajay narrated the incident. However, the prosecution failed to examine him, which created a gap in the evidence. The Court stated:

“The prosecution has not explained why the milkman was not examined as a witness. His testimony was crucial to confirm Ajay’s initial version of events.”

3. Doubts About Identification of the Accused

Ajay claimed that he recognized the accused in the dark because one of them lit a matchstick. The Court found this explanation implausible, stating:

“It is difficult to accept that an accused would light a matchstick while committing a crime in darkness.”

4. Forensic Evidence Did Not Support Prosecution’s Case

The Court pointed out that the shoeprints found near the crime scene did not match Pradeep’s footwear. This further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Pradeep.
It ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Pradeep was directed to be released immediately.

Implications of the Judgment

Sets a precedent for cases relying on child witnesses, ensuring their testimonies are scrutinized carefully.
Reinforces the principle that courts must be cautious when convictions are based on a single, uncorroborated witness.
Highlights the importance of examining all material witnesses to ensure a fair trial.

This ruling serves as a reminder that courts must uphold the principles of fair trial and due process, ensuring that no individual is convicted based on weak and uncorroborated evidence.

Petitioner Name: Pradeep.
Respondent Name: The State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 04-07-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pradeep-vs-the-state-of-haryana-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-04-07-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category