The Supreme Court has reinstated the conviction of a man accused of murdering his wife, relying heavily on the testimony of his seven-year-old daughter. The Court ruled that the child’s account was both credible and consistent, reinforcing that a child witness cannot be dismissed outright if capable of rational testimony.
Weighing the circumstantial evidence alongside the father’s inability to explain his wife’s death—an event that occurred within their home with only their daughter present—the Court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The ruling emphasized that when a person is in exclusive control of the scene of a crime, their failure to provide a satisfactory explanation is a critical factor.
Clarifying the Law on Child Witnesses
The Court outlined key principles regarding child witness testimony:
- No Age Restriction: The law does not impose a minimum age for witnesses, provided they can comprehend and respond rationally.
- Preliminary Examination: Before testifying, a child must be assessed to determine their ability to understand the significance of truthfulness.
- Demeanor Matters: Trial courts must document the child’s behavior and coherence while testifying.
- No Automatic Need for Corroboration: If a child’s testimony is clear, consistent, and believable, it alone can serve as the basis for conviction.
- Scrutiny for Tutoring: While child witnesses are considered susceptible to influence, courts must distinguish between coached testimony and genuine recollections.
A Case of Unwavering Testimony
In this case, the accused was initially convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (destruction of evidence), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the verdict, questioning the reliability of the child’s statement due to an 18-day delay in recording it.
The Supreme Court, after careful review, found no evidence of tutoring. The child’s detailed and unwavering account of witnessing her father assault her mother, leading to her death, was supported by circumstantial evidence and other testimonies. The Court held that the delay in recording her statement did not diminish its credibility.
Setting aside the acquittal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child’s testimony, when found reliable, carries the same weight as that of any competent witness.