A murder conviction cannot stand on unreliable sole child-witness testimony.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act for allegedly killing Pandi Kumari with a wooden stick, following accusations of witchcraft and a land dispute.

The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of P.W.-1, an approximately ten-year-old child witness said to have witnessed the assault. The appellant challenged the conviction in appeal, disputing the reliability of that testimony.

The High Court examined the child witness’s evidence alongside the testimony of her mother, the informant, and the investigating officer.

1. Whether P.W.-1’s testimony as the alleged eyewitness was sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellant’s conviction

2. Whether, in the absence of reliable evidence implicating the appellant, the conviction could be upheld

The Court applied Sections 302 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, under which the appellant had been charged and convicted.

Relying on State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, (2025) 8 SCC 545, the Court stated that a competent child witness’s evidence is assessed on the same footing as that of other witnesses, but must be scrutinised with care for reliability, voluntariness, and possible influence or tutoring. Corroboration is not an absolute requirement, though a court may seek it as a matter of caution and prudence in the circumstances of the case.

The Court found material reasons to doubt P.W.-1’s account. She said that her mother and two uncles were present in the house during the assault, but her mother, P.W.-2, testified that she was away at a marriage and learned of the incident from villagers.

The informant’s trial testimony also differed from his fardbeyan as to how he learned of the incident and did not identify P.W.-1 as the source.

Further, the investigating officer testified that the informant’s statement had been recorded in Hindi, although the informant had testified in Mundari and the court had recorded that a translator was required because he did not know Hindi.

Applying the cautious approach required for child-witness evidence, the Court held P.W.-1’s testimony unreliable; it found no other evidence implicating the appellant.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in another case.