A conviction cannot rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a doubtful child witness.

Bachcha Singh, an unmarried and issueless man, had allegedly executed a registered adoption deed in favour of Shiv Narayan Singh, the brother of informant Shiv Nath Singh.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants—Munua Singh, Bhagwan Bux Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh—developed animosity over the deceased’s property and, on the night of 19 February 1985, went to the deceased’s baithaka, strangulated him with a towel and removed his body to a potato and mustard field.

The deceased’s minor niece, Manau (P.W.2), was projected as the sole eyewitness.

The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia due to strangulation.

The trial court convicted all three accused under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and two years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with sentences to run concurrently.

During the appeal, Bhagwan Bux Singh died and his appeal abated; the appeal survived against Munua Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh.

1. Whether the conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC could safely be sustained solely on the testimony of an eight-year-old child witness whose evidence was allegedly inconsistent, tutored and unsupported by independent corroboration

2. Whether the trial court’s failure to conduct and record a preliminary examination of the child witness regarding her capacity to understand questions and speak the truth materially affected the reliability of her testimony

3. Whether the hearsay testimony of the informant, the hostile testimony of P.W.3, and the alleged property-related motive were sufficient corroboration of the child witness’s account.

The Court applied Sections 302/34 IPC concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention and Section 201 IPC concerning causing disappearance of evidence.

It applied the principle that the testimony of a child witness is admissible but must be subjected to careful and close scrutiny, particularly where it constitutes the sole basis of conviction.

Relying on Pradeep v. State of Haryana, (2023) 19 SCC 221, the Court held that the trial court should conduct and record a preliminary examination to determine whether the child understands the questions, can give rational answers and understands the duty to speak the truth.

The Court also relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, for the principle that a solitary witness must possess sterling and unimpeachable credibility before a conviction can safely rest upon such testimony.

The prosecution was required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and material doubt entitled the surviving appellants to acquittal.

The Court found that P.W.1, the informant, was not an eyewitness and his account regarding the occurrence was based entirely on what P.W.2 allegedly told him; therefore, his evidence was hearsay and could not independently sustain the conviction.

P.W.2’s conduct was considered inherently improbable: although she allegedly witnessed the strangulation, she remained silent throughout the night, did not seek help from family members who were sleeping nearby, and disclosed the incident only in the morning, despite the assailants having already left.

Her evidence also contained material inconsistencies regarding how the deceased was removed from the baithaka.

The absence of a recorded preliminary examination further weakened the evidentiary value of her testimony and left open the possibility of tutoring.

P.W.3 did not support the prosecution and denied seeing the accused near the place of occurrence, thereby undermining the alleged corroboration and the prosecution’s account of the appellants’ presence.

The Court additionally held that the alleged property motive was doubtful because, under the adoption deed, the deceased’s property would devolve upon the adopted son rather than the appellants.

Viewed cumulatively, the evidence did not meet the standard of sterling reliability or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2 was not sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction, particularly in view of her conduct, inconsistencies, the absence of a preliminary examination, the hearsay nature of P.W.1’s evidence, and the hostile testimony of P.W.3.

The appeal was allowed; the trial court’s conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC were set aside; Munua Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.

As they were on bail, they were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.