Child Witness Testimony, If Reliable, Sufficient for Conviction in Homicide Cases: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-04-02

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Sentence Based on Child Witness Testimony in Double Murder Case

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed a life sentence for a woman convicted of murdering her parents-in-law, relying significantly on the testimony of her 11-year-old daughter, Rajkumari , who witnessed the gruesome crime. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Sukwariya Bai , upholding the trial court's judgment.

Case Background

Sukwariya Bai was convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, for offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case rested on the events of May 19, 2014, when Sukwariya Bai allegedly attacked her mother-in-law, Kamla Bai , father-in-law, Thakur Prasad , and daughter, Rajkumari , with an iron crowbar. Kamla Bai and Thakur Prasad succumbed to their injuries, while Rajkumari sustained grievous hurt.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged based on the complaint of Devnarayan Gond , Sukwariya 's husband and son of the deceased. The prosecution presented evidence including post-mortem reports confirming homicidal deaths, medical reports detailing Rajkumari 's injuries, seizure of the iron crowbar, and crucially, the eyewitness account of Rajkumari .

Arguments of the Appellant

Represented by Advocate Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Sukwariya Bai argued that she was falsely implicated. The defense contended that the prosecution failed to establish circumstances against her, highlighting contradictions and omissions in witness statements. It was further argued that even if the prosecution's case was accepted, the act could fall under the exception of sudden and grave provocation, mitigating the murder charge. The defense also challenged the validity of the weapon seizure and asserted a lack of proven overt act by Sukwariya Bai .

State's Standpoint and Court's Observation

Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the State, defended the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the presence of the deceased in Sukwariya 's house, requiring her to explain the circumstances of their death. The state asserted that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and linked Sukwariya to the crime. A key argument highlighted was the reliability of Rajkumari 's testimony, despite her being a child witness.

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, particularly Rajkumari 's testimony. Referencing Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the competency of witnesses, the court reiterated that "a child of tender age is a competent witness if it appears that it can understand the questions put to it and give rational answers thereto."

The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents on child witness testimony, including Panchhi v. State of UP , State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji & others , and Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and others V. State of Maharashtra . These judgments establish that while child witness testimony requires careful scrutiny due to potential tutoring, it is admissible and can be the basis of conviction if found reliable and credible.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court noted Rajkumari 's consistent and clear testimony, stating:

> "In cross-examination, this child witness has strongly denied the defence's suggestion that Sukavariya had not hit the witness' grandparents... This witness has also clearly denied the defence's suggestion that she is telling about the incident as per her father's telling, rather the witness has clearly stated that no one has taught or explained her to tell anything in the court rather she is telling what she has seen and what she knows."

The judgment further emphasized the corroboration of Rajkumari 's testimony with medical evidence of her injuries and the recovery of the blood-stained iron crowbar based on Sukwariya Bai 's memorandum statement.

> "On the basis of testimony of eyewitness Rajkumari (PW-8) and further on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-11), iron crowbar has been recovered vide Ex.P-12 and it has been subjected to FSL, in which blood was found... the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting appellant Sukwariya Bai for offence under Sections 302 and 326 of the IPC."

Final Verdict and Implications

The Chhattisgarh High Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that the testimony of a child witness, if found credible and reliable, can be sufficient for conviction even in serious offences like homicide. The court directed the registry to inform Sukwariya Bai of her right to appeal to the Supreme Court.