Pradeep … Appellant
versus
The State of Haryana ... Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2012
This case involves an appeal by accused no.2 against the order of conviction by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Section 302(Murder) read with Section 34(Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 449 (House-trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with death) and 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused, along with accused no.1, were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 449 read with Section 34, and one year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34.
The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of a minor witness, Ajay, who was 12 years old at the time of recording his evidence. He stated that the accused entered his house through a window, and accused no.1 assaulted his mother with a knife while accused no.2 held her hands. The witness claimed to have witnessed the incident and informed a milkman, Golu, about the murder at around 5 am. The witness's statement was recorded in the hospital after his father arrived.
The Court examined the competency of a child witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and held that a child witness is competent to testify unless he is unable to understand the questions put to him or give rational answers. The Court emphasized the importance of the Judge's duty to conduct a preliminary examination to ascertain the child witness's capability to understand and respond.
The Court scrutinized the witness's testimony and found several discrepancies and inconsistencies in his statements. Moreover, the prosecution failed to corroborate the child witness's testimony adequately. The Court also noted that crucial witnesses, like the milkman and the appellant's father, were not examined. Additionally, the footwear of the appellant did not match the footmarks found at the crime scene.
Considering the deficiencies in the prosecution's case and the possibility of the child witness being tutored, the Court concluded that it would not be safe to base the conviction solely on the testimony of the minor witness. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The bail bonds of the appellant were also cancelled.
July 5, 2023