Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2007 & Jagadevappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2007, Decided on
May 7, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“it is well settled in
law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can
form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is
corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say, the
corroboration is not a must to record a conviction, but as a rule of prudence,
the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable
evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on
the solitary statement of witness, namely, that the statement is true and
correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack
of corroboration, applies to a child witness who is competent and whose version
is reliable.” [Para 16]
The
Court noted following case law in this respect:
Dattu
Ramrao Sakhare and others v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, while
dealing with the reliability of witness who was ten years old, this Court
opined that a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and
reliable, such evidence could form the basis of conviction. The evidence of a
child witness and the credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances
of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while
assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a
reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and
there is no likelihood of being tutored. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to lay
down that there is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such
a witness should be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand
but, as a rule of prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek the
corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record.
Panchhi
and others v. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177, it has been held thus: -
“Courts
have laid down that evidence of a child witness must find adequate
corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom
than of law (vide Prakash v. State of M.P. (1992) 4 SCC 225 , Baby
Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala 1993
Supp (3) SCC 667, Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 287 and Dattu
Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341.
State
of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another (2000) 3 SCC 70
To see full text follow the link: