Child Witness's Tutored Testimony & Prosecution's Failure to Prove Guilt Lead to Acquittal in Murder Case: Chhattisgarh HC - 2025-07-04

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband in Wife's Murder Case, Cites Unreliable and Tutored Child Witness Testimony

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted Onkar Markande , a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, citing the unreliability of the sole eyewitness—his three-year-old son—and the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput set aside the 2018 conviction by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, emphasizing that a tutored child's testimony cannot form the basis for a conviction.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case was that on January 1, 2016, Onkar Markande , a meat vendor, murdered his wife, Pushpa, with a slaughter knife. The incident occurred in their home, where the only other occupants were their two minor children. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a neighbour, Kedar Nath Bhoi (PW-1), who was alerted by the couple's three-year-old son, Aditya (PW-5).

When the neighbour arrived, he found the appellant lying at the door with a slit wrist and the deceased in another room in a pool of blood. The trial court convicted Markande under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction was flawed, primarily because the testimony of the child witness (PW-5) was unreliable. It was contended that the child, who was only three at the time of the incident, admitted during cross-examination that he was coached by his maternal grandparents on what to say in court. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the crime.

The State, however, defended the trial court's judgment. It argued that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof was on the appellant to explain how his wife died, as he was present at the scene.

Court's Analysis: Scrutiny of Child Witness and Burden of Proof

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found significant gaps in the prosecution's narrative.

On the Testimony of the Child Witness (PW-5)

The Court deemed the evidence of the child witness, Aditya , to be unreliable and untrustworthy. It highlighted several critical factors: - The witness was of a "very tender age of just 03" at the time of the incident. - His statement was recorded in court nearly nine months after the event. - He had been living with his maternal relatives, who had an opportunity to influence him.

Most crucially, the court pointed to the child's own admission in cross-examination:

"He has categorically stated that right from the day when he went to the house of his maternal grand parents, he was told by them as to in what manner the statement was to be made by him. He has further clarified that the injuries to his mother have been described by him as was told by his maternal uncle."

The judgment, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh , reiterated that while a child witness can be competent, courts must be cautious and rule out the possibility of tutoring. The High Court concluded that Aditya 's testimony was "not voluntary" but "borne out of the influence of his maternal relatives."

On Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act

The bench rejected the State's reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Citing the landmark Supreme Court case Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer , the Court clarified that this provision does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to first prove its case.

"The law is settled that such presumption [under Section 106] will operate only when the prosecution first proves the commission of crime against the appellant and only then the burden would shift on him to explain the things... as the prosecution itself has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden under Section 106 IEA cannot shift on the appellant."

The Court also noted that the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, had offered an alternative explanation: an unknown attacker entered the house, assaulted both him and his wife, and fled.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution's case was built on a "weak foundation" and failed to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, the High Court allowed the appeal. The bench observed that the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt, as required by the panchsheel principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra .

The judgment stated:

"In aforesaid view of the factual and legal discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court holding the accused-appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC, is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties."

Onkar Markande was acquitted of the murder charge and ordered to be released from jail immediately.