/2023 INSC 0279/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2203 of 2010 
Radhey Shyam & Ors. …..Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan                       …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The   appeal   is   by   accused   nos.9,   2   and   1
respectively,   who   have   been   convicted   for   the
offences punishable under Section 148 and Section
302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
There were 29 accused named in the charge sheet,
out  of  which  accused nos.1, 2,  5, 7,  9, 15,  17  and
20   were   convicted   by   the   Sessions   Court   and   the
remaining   21   were   acquitted.     By   the   impugned
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  1  of  9

judgment,   the   High   Court   has   upheld   the
conviction of the appellants.
2. There   was   a   political   rivalry   between   the
family   of  the  deceased  Raghunath  Singh   and  some
of   the   accused   persons   who   belong   to   the   Ahir
community  and who had formed a party known as
Azad party.  The incident is of 16 th
 April 1976.  PW­
6   Shiv   Raj   Singh,   who   is   the   brother   of   the
deceased   Raghunath   Singh,   lodged   First
Information Report (FIR).  A group of Ahirs attacked
the   deceased.     According   to   the   prosecution   case,
PW nos.2, 3 and 4 were the eyewitnesses.  The Trial
Court discarded the testimony of PW­2 but believed
the testimony of PW­3 Krishna, the minor, who was
the daughter of the deceased, and PW­4 Kanwarbai,
who is the mother of the deceased.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
3. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
appellants   submitted   that   PW­3   is   a   child   witness
whose   evidence   is   required   to   be   scanned   very
cautiously.  Inviting our attention to the evidence of
PW­3   Krishna   and,   in   particular,   her   cross­
examination,   she   submitted   that   her   testimony
cannot be held to be reliable, particularly when the
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  2  of  9

identification of the accused made by the witness in
the Court is highly doubtful.  Moreover, PW­4 could
not   identify   a   single   accused   in   the   Court   and,
therefore, it was unsafe to rely upon her testimony.
She   also   pointed   out   that   there   was   a   delay   of   3
days   in   sending   the   FIR   to   the   learned   Magistrate.
There   was   a   political   rivalry   between   the   family   of
the   deceased   and   the   political   party   to   which   the
accused belonged and, therefore, during the period
of these three days, false implication of the accused
must have taken place.
4. Learned   senior   counsel   representing   the
State urged that perusal of the answers given to the
preliminary questions put to the child witness (PW­
3) shows that the witness had good intelligence and
understanding.     He   submitted   that   though   she
correctly   identified   the   accused   no.1   as   the   son   of
Ramchander,   by   mistake   she   mentioned   the   name
of Modu (acquitted accused), who was also the son
of   one   Ramchander.     He   submitted   that   this   is   a
minor   discrepancy   which   is   not   sufficient   to
discredit   the   version   of   PW­3.     He   submitted   that
PW­4   Kanwarbai   named   five   persons   as   the
accused.     He  submitted   that  PW­4  was  not   able   to
identify  the   accused  with  reference  to  their  names.
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  3  of  9

He   submitted   that   this   can   happen   easily   due   to
lapse of time.   He would, therefore, submit that the
conclusions   drawn   by   the   High   Court   and   the
Sessions   Court,   as   regards   the   guilt   of   the
appellants, cannot be faulted with.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5. We   find   that   the   prosecution   case   depends
only   on   the   testimony   of   PW­3   Krishna   and   PW­4
Kanwarbai.     The   age   of   PW­3   was   12   years   at   the
time   of   the   recording   of   her   evidence.     Evidence   of
PW­3   cannot   be   rejected   only   on   the   ground   that
her   age   was   12   years.     However,   being   a   child
witness,   her   evidence   needs   a   very   careful
evaluation   with   greater   circumspection   considering
the   fact   that   a   child   witness   can   always   be   easily
tutored.     Therefore,   we   have   made   a   careful
scrutiny   of   her   version.     In   the   examination­in­
chief,   she   stated   that   she   saw   that   30­35   persons
were   assaulting   her   father   (the   deceased).     She
stated   that   she   identified   persons,   namely,
Raghunath (accused no.1); Shyama (accused no.8);
Bhavana   (Bhawani)   –   accused   no.20;   Modu   and
Chaturbhuj   (accused   no.15).     There   are   two
accused   by   the   name   of   Modu   (accused   no.2   and
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  4  of  9

accused   no.14).     Though   she   named   Shyama
(accused   no.8),   she   described   him   as   Bhavana’s
(Bhawani’s)   brother.     As   can   be   seen   from   the
names of the accused, Bhavana is the son of Kana
Ahir and accused no.9 Radhey Shyam is also a son
of Kana Ahir.  For identifying the accused who were
present in the dock, a very  peculiar  procedure was
followed.  The accused, whose names were taken by
PW­3,   were   told   to   stand   outside   the   dock   and
others were told to continue in the dock.  While the
five   accused   were   being   brought   out   of   the   dock,
the   witness   was   told   to   remain   out   of   the   Court
Hall. This procedure was unfair to the accused as it
was   aimed   at   facilitating   easy   identification   of   the
five   accused   by   the   minor   witness.   Such   a
procedure   is   not   fair   to   the   accused.   It   is   noted   in
the deposition that PW­3 identified accused Radhey
Shyam   (accused   no.9)   as   a   son   of   Kana   by   calling
him   Shyama.     She   correctly   identified   accused
Bhavana,   son   of   Kana,   Modu,   son   of   Nathu   and
Chaturbhuj   as   a   son   of   Onkar.     She   identified
accused   no.1   Raghunath   as   Modu   as   a   son   of
Ramchander.     In   the   cross­examination,   when   a
Court question  was  put  to  her, calling  upon  her  to
explain why she has identified Modu by saying that
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  5  of  9

he   is   Raghunath,   the   witness   replied   that   she   had
forgotten   due   to   lapse   of   time.     In   response   to   a
question   who   was   Radhey   Shyam,   she   replied   that
he   was   a   brahmin   and   is   not   an   accused.     She
accepted   that   her   grandmother   had   told   her   that
their   family   had   a   fight   with   Ahirs,   who   have
formed the Azad party.   She also accepted that her
grandmother told her the names of Modu, Bhavan,
Chaturbhuj and Raghunath as persons forming the
party.  She stated that she had told the police while
recording   her   statement   that   30­35   persons
belonging   to   the   Azad   party   were   assaulting   her
father.   The   manner   in   which   the   minor   witness
identified the accused, it becomes unsafe to convict
the accused based only on her testimony.
6. Now   we   turn   to   the   deposition   of   PW­4
Kanwarbai,   who   is   the   mother   of   the   deceased.
According to her version, PW­3 Krishna came to her
weeping   and   stated   that   30­35   persons   were
beating   her   father.     When   she   rushed   to   the   spot,
she found her son (Raghunath) crying in pain.  She
stated   that   in   her   presence,   Gopal   (accused   no.17)
inflicted   a   blow   on   the   ear   of   the   deceased.     She
stated  that  accused  no.20  gave  a   lathi   blow  on   the
arm   and   left   armpit   of   her   son.   She   stated   that
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  6  of  9

accused no.1 Raghunath, accused no.7 Pratap and
accused   no.5   also   gave   lathi   blows   to   her   son.
When she was questioned whether she was able to
identify   30­35   accused   persons   with   their   names,
her   response   was   that   she   knew   their   names   and
also their father’s names and she was in a position
to   identify   them.     Thereafter   she   stated   several
names.     When   she   was   called   upon   to   identify   the
accused,   she   could   not   identify   any   one   of   the
accused with reference to their names.  The learned
Judge noted in the deposition  that  PW­4 could  not
identify   any   accused.     The   note   made   by   the
learned Sessions Judge reads thus : 
“Note:   ­   The   witness   by   going   close   the
accused, taking  round again  and  again,
by   pushing   aside   in   front   and   by   going
close   the   rear   person   tried   to   have   a
look,   identified   in   this   manner   and
sometime   by   standing   for   a   moment
close to the accused went ahead and on
return   could   identify   someone,   also
stated   that   vision   is   not   clear   because
there is some darkness.  Two tube lights
are   burning   in   court   whereby   sufficient
light   is   there   and   one   tube   light   is   on
the side of the accused themselves.   The
witness   stated   that   though   the   light
is sufficient and faces are also visible
but   it   is   not   assessed   as   to   who   are
these persons.”
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  7  of  9

                              (emphasis added)
Thereafter   PW­4   was   asked   who   were   the   accused
out   of   the   persons   present.     She   stated   that   all   of
them   were   there   but   their   faces   were   not   clear   for
identification. 
 
7. Thus, PW­4, who claims to be an eye witness,
could not  identify   a single accused by  name in  the
Court   though   she   claimed   that   she   was   in   a
position   to   identify   the   accused   by   their   names   as
well as their respective father’s name.
8. We   have   already   discussed   the   evidence   of
PW­3,   the   minor   witness.     Her   testimony   shows
that she got confused while identifying at least two
accused   though   five   accused   whom   she   allegedly
named   were   made   to   stand   separately   from   the
remaining   accused.     The   version   of   PW­3   Krishna,
when   it   comes   to   the   identity   of   the   accused,   does
not   inspire   confidence.     In   any   case,   it   is   very
unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of such
testimony,   especially   when   the   only   other   eye
witness (PW­4) believed by the Trial Court could not
identify a single accused in the Court.   The learned
Trial   Judge   noted   that   there   was   sufficient   light   in
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  8  of  9

the courtroom and faces of the accused were clearly
visible.
9. We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   opinion
that   the   identity   of   the   named   accused   as
assailants of the deceased has not been established
in   the   Court   beyond   a   reasonable   doubt.     Then
what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery
of   the   weapons   of   assault   at   the   instance   of   the
accused.   The   conviction   cannot   be   sustained   only
on the basis of the alleged recovery. 
10. Therefore,   the   conviction   of   the   appellants
under   impugned   judgments   and   orders   is   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   appellants   are
acquitted   of   the   charge   levelled   against   them.     The
appellants   are   on   bail.     Their   bail   bonds   stand
cancelled.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.
……………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
..…………………………J.
[RAJESH BINDAL] 
New Delhi
April 12, 2023.
Crl.A.No.2203 of 2010
Page  9  of  9