Testimony of child witnesses requires corroboration and careful scrutiny to exclude tutoring and unnatural conduct.

On March 9, 1996, Jangli Ram was found murdered in his jhuggi in NIA, Phase-I, with a deep cut over his neck.

No eyewitnesses were present when police arrived.

On March 11, 1996, the prosecution recorded statements from two child witnesses, PW-1 Gudia (3.5 years) and PW-2 Ladli (6 years), who claimed to have seen Respondent No. 1 (Budh Ram) slit the throat of the deceased while Respondent No. 2 (Kamlesh) gagged the victim’s mouth.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on August 17, 1999, citing material contradictions and unreliable testimonies.

The State appealed the acquittal. During pendency, Respondent No. 1 died, and proceedings qua him abated.

1. Whether the testimonies of the child witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were reliable and consistent enough to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. Whether the conduct of the child witnesses and the delay in recording their statements/arresting the accused created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

The court applied Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which establishes that all persons are competent to testify unless prevented by tender years or lack of rational understanding.

It relied on Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan and Pradeep v. State of Haryana, establishing that while a child's testimony is admissible, it must be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out tutoring and typically requires corroboration as a rule of prudence.

The court applied the principle from Samsul Haque v. State of Assam regarding appeals against acquittal, stating that if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail unless the trial court’s judgment is perverse.

The High Court found the child witnesses' testimonies unreliable due to fundamental contradictions regarding the scene of crime; PW-1 claimed to see the murder through a window, whereas the IO and site plan confirmed the jhuggi had no window.

PW-2 provided a version of the injuries (cut to the abdomen) that was directly contradicted by the post-mortem report.

The court noted a significant discrepancy in the medical timeline: the post-mortem suggested death occurred around 10:00 AM, while the children claimed to see it in the afternoon.

The court found the children's conduct unnatural, as they neither raised an alarm nor showed fear.

The 17-day delay in arresting the respondents despite their identities being known suggested potential tutoring.

The court observed that the roles attributed to Respondent No. 2 were improvements not found in the initial Section 161 CrPC statements.

The court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, finding no perversity in the acquittal; State's appeal dismissed and Respondent No. 2’s bail bonds remain valid for six months pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS (formerly Section 437-A CrPC).