Supreme Court acquits man in double murder case citing unreliable child witness testimony

The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the murder conviction of Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1989 killing of his wife and son. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih found that the prosecution's case rested precariously on the uncorroborated and tutored testimony of the surviving child witness, and that the chain of circumstantial evidence was riddled with gaps.

A Child's Troubling Testimony

The prosecution alleged that on September 20, 1989, the appellant took his estranged wife Sushma and their two sons from Kanpur to Khajuraho under the pretext of a trip, and then killed Sushma and their son Shashank by strangulation. The surviving child, then aged four and a half, later identified his father as the killer. But the trial court acquitted the appellant in 1993, unconvinced by the child's account. The Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed that acquittal in 2012, leading to the present appeal.

Why the Apex Court Intervened

The Supreme Court underscored the double presumption of innocence that protects an acquitted accused, and held that the High Court could not disturb the trial court's reasoned assessment merely because it took a different view. Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , the bench observed that where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not interfere.

The child witness (PW-28) was only four and a half years old at the time of the incident and gave his evidence four years later. Crucially, he admitted that a police officer had made him read a prepared statement and instructed him to repeat it in court. The medical evidence contradicted his claim of being strangled and burnt with acid. The Court, citing Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. , reaffirmed that while child testimony is not legally required to be corroborated, it is a rule of prudence to seek corroboration, especially when there is evidence of tutoring.

"Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof"

Beyond the child's testimony, the prosecution's circumstantial case unravelled. The Court noted that the cause of death could not be definitively established due to advanced decomposition of the bodies. The alleged recovery of clothes and a bottle from the crime scene—made six months after the bodies were discovered—was highly doubtful. The independent witnesses to the recovery turned hostile, and the investigating officer admitted the recovered articles bore no mud or earth residue despite being buried six feet deep.

The "last seen" evidence was also weak: witnesses either could not identify the person accompanying the deceased or specifically stated it was not the appellant. No motive was proved; on the contrary, neighbours described the couple's relations as amicable. The unexplained five-day delay in registering the FIR, even though the child was at the police station from September 26, further eroded the prosecution's credibility.

A Complete Collapse of the Prosecution Case

"The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused," the Court observed, quoting Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala . Here, the prosecution failed to link the appellant to the crime through medical, forensic, or reliable eyewitness evidence.

The Court concluded that the High Court had erred in overturning the acquittal. The conviction was set aside, and Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were discharged.