Delhi HC Affirms Acquittal, Calls for Strict Scrutiny of Child Witness Testimony

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the stringent standards for relying on child witnesses in criminal trials, ruling that testimonies riddled with inconsistencies and unnatural conduct cannot sustain a murder conviction. Affirming an acquittal order from 1999, the Court emphasized that while children are competent witnesses, their susceptibility to tutoring necessitates corroboration and a cautious judicial approach.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja and Justice Navin Chawla, presiding over a bench that heard the State's appeal against a decades-old acquittal, scrutinized the reliability of two child eye witnesses in a brutal murder case. The State had challenged the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Standards for Child Testimony and Judicial Caution

In analyzing the competency of the young witnesses, the Court invoked Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that age alone does not disqualify a witness. Referring to the principles laid down in Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan ( "(2014) 5 SCC 389": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 80) and Pradeep v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that child evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out tutoring. The bench highlighted that while oath-taking is not mandatory for children under 12, as clarified in Pradeep v. State of Haryana, the Trial Judge must record satisfaction regarding the child's intellectual capacity.

As observed in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat ( "(2004) 1 SCC 64": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 682), children are often considered 'dangerous witnesses' because they are easily pliable. The High Court further referenced its own recent ruling in R. Santosh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), stating that the assessment must determine if the evidence is a voluntary expression or influenced by others.

Fatal Contradictions and Unnatural Conduct

The Court found that the testimonies of the two child witnesses, aged 3.5 and 6 at the time of the incident, were irreconcilable with the physical evidence. One witness claimed to have seen the murder through a window, whereas the Investigating Officer and the site plan confirmed the jhuggi had no window. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the eye witness accounts regarding the time of death and the nature of the injuries.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The claim of PWs 1 and 2 of their having seen the murder of Jangli appears to be doubtful also from their most unnatural conduct after seeing the crime. None of them cried nor any of the two shouted to draw the attention of the other children playing around... whether PWs 1 and 2 kept on playing or went for tuition after seeing the murder their conduct was inconsistent with natural human conduct. It is difficult to believe that two girls of tender years would be brave enough to digest all that they saw and take the things so coolly."

The Court has the following directions:

"The bail bond submitted by the Respondent Kamlesh, shall remain valid for another period of six months from today in terms of Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [erstwhile Section 437-A Cr. PC]."

Key Takeaways:

Corroboration as a Measure of Prudence

While a child witness can be the sole basis for conviction, the lack of corroboration from scientific evidence or other reliable witnesses makes such a conviction precarious in the face of material contradictions.

Test of Natural Human Conduct

Courts will assess the emotional and physical reaction of a child witness to a gruesome event; reactions that defy ordinary human behaviour such as continuing to play after seeing a murder can render the testimony doubtful.

Delayed Arrest and Tutoring Risks

An unexplained delay in arresting accused persons after their names are allegedly revealed by witnesses can lead to an inference of tutoring, especially when statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 show progressive 'improvements'.

Ratio Decidendi:

The testimony of a child witness, though competent under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires a high degree of scrutiny to ensure it is not the result of tutoring. If such testimony is inconsistent with the site plan, medical reports, or fails the test of natural human conduct, it cannot form the basis of a conviction, especially when two views are possible in an appeal against acquittal, as established in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam ( "(2019) 18 SCC 161": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2444).

Background:

The case originated from the 1996 murder of one Jangli Ram at Indira Gandhi Camp. The prosecution alleged that Budh Ram (now deceased) slit the victim's throat while his wife Kamlesh held the victim down. The case relied almost exclusively on two girls who were playing marbles nearby. However, the Trial Court acquitted the duo in 1999, citing a lack of reliable evidence and potential tutoring. The State's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which found no perversity in the Trial Court’s findings. The Court noted that the weapon was found at the spot rather than recovered from the accused, and there was no biological link established via DNA or serology between the respondent and the crime scene.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 354/2003
Case Title: STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) v. BUDH RAM & ANR.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv. & Insp. Deepak Sharma, PS Naraina, New Delhi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.N. Parashar & Mr. Ritik Singh, Advs. for R-2

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 495