CASE BRIEF: Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka – 2001 (1) SCR 1

Case Brief
Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka – 2001 (1) SCR 1
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi JJ.
Date of Judgment
3^rd January 2001
Facts of the Case
Ms. Saroja, (deceased) had developed intimacy and extra marital relations with the appellant, as a result of which she gave birth to a male child. After the birth of the child differences arose between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant started suspecting the deceased of having illegal connections with other persons. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Unable to bear the cruelty of the appellant, the deceased left the residence of the appellant 8 days prior to her death and started living in the house of his brother Ravi (PW1). On 22nd September, 1993 the deceased accompanied by Bhavya (PW2), the female child of Ravi (PW1), who was about four years of age, went to the village tank in the afternoon for washing the clothes. While she was washing clothes, the appellant came and stabbed Saroja with knife inflicting injuries on her neck, chest and other parts of the body causing severe bleeding resulting in her death.
Immediately the child Bhavya (PW2) rushed to the house and informed her parents about the occurrence specifically mentioning that the appellant had stabbed the deceased. On the complaint of Ravi (PW1) FIR was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate who committed the accused to the Sessions Court for standing trial for offences under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Upon the conclusion of the trial the Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life besides paying a fine of Rs. 1000. In default of the payment of the fine the appellant was directed to undergo further imprisonment of 30 days. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
It has to be noticed that the whole of the prosecution case is mainly based upon the statement of child witness Bhavya (PW2). The witness was related both to the accused and the deceased.
Both the courts below have concurrently held that deceased Saroja met with homicidal death on 22nd September, 1993 at about 2.00 p.m. near Keremane water tank of Village Kanoor. Relying upon the testimony of PW2 it has been held that he appellant had inflicted the fatal blows on the body of the deceased which resulted in her death.
Judgment
It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Bhavya (PW2), who was at the time of occurrence was about four years of age, is the only solitary eye-witness who was rightly not given the oath. The time and place of the occurrence and the attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility of there being any other person as an eye-witness. The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. If she is shown to have stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based upon her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal circumstances, would like to mix up what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not.
This Court in Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P. [1998] 7 SCC 177, held that the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus an easy prey to tutoring. The evidence of the child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law vide Prakash v. State of M.P. [1992] 4 SCC 225.
In this case Bhavya (PW2) when appeared before the trial court was of 6 years of age. After questioning the witness, the Sessions Judge found,”though the girl is 6 years old she is active and she understands everything”.
The Hon’ble Court found no reason to take a contrary view. The mere fact that her mother had told that she did not know any other language except Malyalam and that the words spoken to by her were not in that language cannot be used as a ground to reject her testimony. The child and her parents conversed in Malyalam language at their residence which has explained to the Investigating Officer in the language which has understood by him.
There is no ground of doubting the veracity of the testimony of this child witness as it was found that her name is mentioned in the FIR which is proved to have been recorded immediately after the occurrence. Otherwise also there is sufficient corroboration on record to rule out the possibility of PW2 being tutored or used for ulterior purposes by some alleged interested persons. Her testimony to the effect of deceased living with PW1 is sufficiently corroborated by the other evidence led in the case. The factum of deceased having received stabbed wound with knife is proved by the medical evidence. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant in consequence of his disclosure statement leaves no doubt to believe her statement. The place of occurrence being near the water tank has not been seriously disputed.
 
Decision
Under the circumstances of the case and relying upon the testimony of PW2 which is found to be not suffering from any infirmity and is corroborated in all material particulars, the court found no substance in this appeal which was accordingly dismissed upholding the judgment of the trial court and the High Court.
Shubham Shandilya, IVth Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune