2011 Supreme(SC) 312

2011 (2) Supreme 435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of M.P. — Appellant
versus
Ramesh & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2005
Decided on : 18-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302 read with 120-B - Appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and order passed by High Court reversing the judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting the respondent No.1 under Section 302 of IPC and respondent No.2 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, and sentencing them to life imprisonment-Trial Court after considering entire evidence on record came to conclusion that injuries found on person of deceased could not have been received from a fall on ground-The injuries found on his body were in consonance with the deposition of child witness (P.W.1), who had stated that after hearing the noise, she woke up and saw that accused R was beating her father with “Gumma” and her mother had caught hold of the deceased by his legs- The doctor had found that blood had oozed from his mouth and such injury could be possible as per the case of prosecution- Post mortem report clearly explained that deceased died of `Asphyxia’ -No conflict between medical and ocular evidence-Prosecution case was fully supported by PW.5 and partly supported by PW.7 and PW.3- Admission of accused B itself that both the persons were present inside the room and were well aware of the incident- Statement of child witness P.W.1 was affirmed by the statements of other witnesses, proved circumstances and medical evidence.- Her deposition being precise, concise, specific and vivid without any improvement or embroidery was worth acceptance in toto- No reason to believe the theory put forward by the defence that deceased died because of falling from giddiness- High Court completely ignored the most material incriminating circumstances which appeared against the respondents/accused- The findings so recorded by the High Court were contrary to the evidence on record and thus, were held to be perverse-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored-Appeal allowed. (Paras 23 to 32)

        Evidence of child witness-Admissibility-Deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence- The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring- Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully- However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition (Para 13)

        Appeal against acquittal-Appellate court being the final court of fact is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision- Law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused- The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by competent court and there can be no quarrel to the said legal proposition that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal (Para 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order passed by High Court reversing the judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting the respondent No.1 under Section 302 of IPC and respondent No.2 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, and sentencing them to life imprisonment.

       Findings of the Court :

        Trial Court after considering entire evidence on record came to conclusion that injuries found on person of deceased could not have been received from a fall on ground. The injuries found on his body were in consonance with the deposition of child witness (P.W.1), who had stated that after hearing the noise, she woke up and saw that accused R was beating her father with “Gumma” and her mother had caught hold of the deceased by his legs.The doctor had found that blood had oozed from his mouth and such injury could be possible as per the case of prosecution. Post mortem report clearly explained that deceased died of `Asphyxia’ There was No conflict between medical and ocular evidence. Prosecution case was fully supported by PW.5 and partly supported by PW.7 and PW.3- Admission of accused B itself that both the persons were present inside the room and were well aware of the incident. Statement of child witness P.W.1 was affirmed by the statements of other witnesses, proved circumstances and medical evidence. Her deposition being precise, concise, specific and vivid without any improvement or embroidery was worth acceptance in toto. There was No reason to believe the theory put forward by the defence that deceased died because of falling from giddiness. High Court completely ignored the most material incriminating circumstances which appeared against the respondents/accused. The findings so recorded by the High Court were contrary to the evidence on record and thus, were held to be perverse. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored. Appeal was allowed.