Conviction is unsafe where an uncorroborated child witness’s delayed testimony contains material inconsistencies.

The appellants were convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The prosecution alleged that, on the intervening night of 21/22 October 1985, Ram Kunwar and Ram Kewal took Shanichari and her two minor daughters from Bishunpura to a secluded place near the Mirzapur–Varanasi Road, where Ram Kunwar allegedly cut Shanichari’s throat while Ram Kewal restrained her.

The accused allegedly concealed the body and abandoned the two children, who were later found near a betel shop at Chunar Bus Stand.

The FIR was lodged on 22 October 1985 after the deceased’s body was discovered near a drain.

The post-mortem disclosed a single extensive incised wound on the neck, measuring approximately 36 cm × 14 cm and extending to the bone; the doctor opined that the injury was more consistent with a heavy weapon such as a pickaxe or fodder-cutting axe than with an ordinary knife.

The prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the deceased’s minor daughter, Parmila, and on the alleged recovery of a bloodstained knife at the pointing out of Ram Kewal.

The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellants.

Whether the conviction could be sustained solely or substantially on the testimony of Parmila, a child witness whose statement was recorded after a substantial delay and whose conduct and testimony were allegedly inconsistent?

Whether the alleged recovery of the knife at the instance of Ram Kewal was admissible and reliable under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the medical evidence regarding the nature and dimensions of the fatal injury was consistent with the prosecution’s allegation that the deceased was killed with the recovered knife?

Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

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

It held that although the testimony of a child witness is admissible and may, in an appropriate case, sustain a conviction, courts must evaluate it with special caution because a child may be susceptible to tutoring or influence; ordinarily, corroboration should be sought as a matter of prudence, as recognised in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341.

Relying on Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 811, the Court stated that conviction is unsafe where a child witness appears exposed to tutoring or gives materially contradictory evidence without independent corroboration.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that portion of information supplied by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to a fact thereby discovered is admissible; the Court relied on Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396, and Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255, regarding concealment, exclusive knowledge, and proof of the precise disclosure statement preceding recovery.

The Court further relied on Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 4 SCC 725, concerning the effect of hostile witnesses and inherent improbabilities.

The Court further relied on Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 488, regarding the significance of material conflict between ocular and medical evidence where the ocular account is otherwise doubtful.

The Court found the prosecution case unsafe because it principally depended on Parmila’s testimony, given when she was approximately nine or ten years old, about four years after the occurrence.

Although her evidence was legally admissible, the Court considered her prolonged silence after reaching the bus stand, despite coming into contact with the police and other persons, to be unnatural and unexplained.

Her testimony was therefore treated as susceptible to tutoring and insufficiently corroborated.

The evidentiary chain was further weakened because Shyam Ji, the betel-shop owner who allegedly encountered and sheltered the children, denied that they had come to or stayed near his shop and denied giving the information attributed to him.

The alleged knife recovery was also rejected as reliable corroboration.

It was made several days after the incident from bushes beside an open and publicly accessible drain, no independent public witness was associated, and the Investigating Officer did not prove a contemporaneous verbatim record of the disclosure statement.

The medical evidence materially conflicted with the alleged weapon: the post-mortem injury was exceptionally large and deep, while the recovered knife had a blade of approximately six inches; the doctor considered a heavy chopping weapon more likely to have caused the injury.

In the Court’s view, this conflict assumed particular significance because the child witness was already unreliable and the prosecution had not established a convincing motive or other independent link connecting the appellants to the offence.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction dated 30 November 1987 were set aside, and Ram Kunwar and Ram Kewal were acquitted of all charges.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged.