/2023 INSC 0599/
2023INSC599REPORTABLE  
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2012  
Pradeep                                 … Appellant
 
versus
 The State of Haryana                  ... Respondent
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J . 
FACTS
1. The   present  appeal   is   by   accused   no.2.     The   appellant­
accused   no.2   has   challenged   the   judgment   and   order   dated
12 th
  January 2009 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by
which   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant   and   accused   No.1
against   the   order   of   conviction   by   the   Sessions   Court   has
been   dismissed.   The   Sessions   Court   convicted   the   appellant
and accused no. 1 for the offences punishable under Section
302  read  with  Section  34  of  the  Indian Penal  Code (for short
‘IPC’) and Sections 449 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The  appellant and  accused  no.1  were  sentenced  to   suffer  life
imprisonment   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302
read with Section 34.  For the offence under Section 449 read
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  1  of  12

with   Section   34,   they   were   directed   to   suffer   rigorous
imprisonment   for   seven   years.     For   the   offence   punishable
under   Section   324   read   with   Section   34   of   IPC,   they   were
sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   year.
Both   the   appellant   and   the   accused   no.   1   Devender   alias
Vikki preferred appeal before the High Court which has been
dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. First   Information   Report   was   registered   on   the   basis   of
the   statement   of   PW­1,   Ajay   who   was   11   years   old   at   the
relevant   time.     He   is   the   youngest   of   three   sons   of   the
deceased   Bhanmati   and   Satpal.   According   to   the
prosecution’s   case,   on   30 th
  December   2002,   Ajay   and   his
mother   (deceased)   were   sleeping   in   their   house   by   locking
their   house   from   inside.   Ajay’s   elder   brother   was   staying   in
Ghaziabad for education and his second brother  had gone to
stay   with   his   maternal   uncle.     Ajay’s   father   Satpal   was
working as Mahant of a temple, and he was residing near the
temple.  He was not residing with the deceased.  According to
the   prosecution’s   case,   at   about   1   am,   PW­1   Ajay   heard   the
noise of his mother.   When he woke up, he saw that accused
nos.   1   and   2   were   grappling   with   his   mother.     Accused   no.1
Vikki by knife inflicted 6 to 7 blows on the stomach and chest
of   the   deceased.   At   that   time,   appellant­accused   no.2   was
holding   the   hands   of   his   mother.     When   Ajay   tried   to   rescue
his   mother,   accused   no.1   inflicted   injuries   on   him   with   the
same   knife.     Thereafter,   both   the   accused   fled   away.     They
had entered the house through a window and they went back
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  2  of  12

through the same window.   According to Ajay, he was hiding
in the house due to fear. At about 5 am, when one Surender,
milkman,   who   is   described   as   Golu   by   PW­6,   came   to   the
house, Ajay came out and disclosed to the said milkman that
the accused had murdered his mother with a knife.  The said
milkman reported the incident to Ajay’s uncle Rajinder Singh
(PW­6) who came to the site.   Thereafter, Ajay’s father Satpal
also   came.   Injured   Ajay   was   taken   to   hospital   where   his
statement   was   recorded.   Based   on   his   statement,   First
Information Report was registered.
3. In his complaint, Ajay stated that on the earlier day, the
accused had come to his house and untied the buffalo. When
the deceased complained, both tried to assault the deceased.
Ajay also stated that six to seven months prior to the incident,
both the accused had entered the field of his family and they
cut “daul” of their field. As the appellant’s father tendered an
apology to Satpal, a complaint was not filed.
4. Apart from PW­1 Ajay, the prosecution examined PW­6­
Rajinder   (Ajay’s   uncle),   and   PW­10   Dr   Varsha,   who   had
examined   Ajay.   The   prosecution   also   examined   PW­12   Dr
Arun   Garg,   who   conducted   post­mortem   on   the   body   of   the
deceased. 
SUBMISSIONS
5. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   has
taken   us   through   the   evidence   of   the   material   prosecution
witnesses.  He submitted that evidence of Ajay will have to be
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  3  of  12

tested very carefully, as he is a minor witness. He pointed out
that   there   is   absolutely   no   corroboration   to   the   testimony   of
the minor witness which is full of material contradictions and
improvements.     He   submitted   that   evidence   of   PW­1   Ajay   is
not   reliable.   He   pointed   out   that   according   to   the
prosecution’s case, Ajay did not disclose the incident till early
morning   to   anyone.     He   disclosed   it   for   the   first   time   to   the
milkman Golu alias Surender who came to his house around
5   am.     In   fact,   PW­6   also   claims   that   he   heard   the   said
milkman   saying   that   the   deceased   has   been   murdered.     He
submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   the
milkman,   which   is   fatal   to   the   prosecution   case.     He   has
submitted that the presence of Ajay at the time of the incident
is   extremely   doubtful.   He   submitted   that   there   was   complete
darkness   in   the   house   at   the   relevant   time   and   therefore,   it
was not possible for the witness Ajay to see the accused.   He
urged that there is every possibility that the witness Ajay was
tutored.     In   any   event,   he   submitted   that   a   very   limited   role
has been ascribed to the appellant of holding the hands of the
deceased while accused no.1 assaulted her with a knife.
6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State   while
supporting   the   impugned   judgments   submitted   that   there   is
no   rule   that   for   maintaining   a   conviction   on   the   sole
testimony   of   a  minor   witness,   corroboration   is   necessary.   He
submitted   that   alleged   contradictions   and   improvements   in
the   testimony   of   minor   witness   Ajay   are   totally   insignificant
which   do   not   make   his   evidence   unreliable.     He   would,
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  4  of  12

therefore,   submit   that   no   interference   is   called   for   with   the
view taken by both Courts.
OUR FINDINGS
7. We have carefully considered the submissions. The fate
of   the   case   depends   on   the   testimony   of   the   minor   witness
Ajay (PW­1).  Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for
short,   “the   Evidence   Act”),   a   child   witness   is   competent   to
depose   unless  the   Court  considers   that  he  is  prevented   from
understanding   the   questions   put   to   him,   or   from   giving
rational answers by the reason of his tender age.   As regards
the administration of oath to a child witness, Section 4 of the
Oaths Act, 1969 (for short “Oaths Act”) is relevant.  Section 4
reads thus:   
“4.   Oaths   or   affirmations   to   be   made   by
witnesses,   interpreters   and   jurors .—(1)
Oaths   or   affirmations   shall   be   made   by   the
following persons, namely:—
(a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who
may   lawfully   be   examined,   or   give,   or   be
required   to   give,   evidence   by   or   before   any
court   or   person   having   by   law   or   consent   of
parties   authority   to   examine   such   persons   or
to receive evidence;
(b)   interpreters   of   questions   put   to,   and
evidence given by, witnesses; and
(c) jurors:
Provided   that   where   the   witness   is   a   child
under   twelve   years   of   age,   and   the   court   or
person   having   authority   to   examine   such
witness  is  of  opinion   that,  though  the   witness
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  5  of  12

understands the duty of speaking the truth, he
does   not  understand   the   nature   of   an   oath   or
affirmation,   the   foregoing   provisions   of   this
section   and   the   provisions   of   Section   5   shall
not   apply   to   such   witness;   but   in   any   such
case   the   absence   of   an   oath   or   affirmation
shall   not   render   inadmissible   any   evidence
given by such witness nor affect the obligation
of the witness to state the truth.
(2) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”  
Under   the   proviso   to   sub­Section   (1)   of   Section   4,   it   is   laid
down   that   in   case   of   a   child   witness   under   12   years   of   age,
unless   satisfaction   as   required   by   the   said   proviso   is
recorded,   an   oath   cannot   be   administered   to   the   child
witness.     In   this   case,   in   the   deposition   of   PW­1   Ajay,   it   is
mentioned   that   his   age   was   12   years   at   the   time   of   the
recording   of   evidence.     Therefore,   the   proviso   to   Section   4   of
the Oaths Act will not apply in this case.  However, in view of
the   requirement   of   Section   118   of   the   Evidence   Act,   the
learned   Trial   Judge   was   under   a   duty   to   record   his   opinion
that the child is able to understand the questions put to him
and   that  he  is   able   to   give  rational  answers  to  the   questions
put to him.  The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that
the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth
and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands
the duty of speaking the truth.
8. It   is   a   well­settled   principle   that   corroboration   of   the
testimony   of   a   child   witness   is   not   a   rule   but   a   measure   of
caution and prudence.  A child witness of tender age is easily
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  6  of  12

susceptible   to   tutoring.     However,   that  by   itself   is   no   ground
to   reject   the   evidence   of   a   child   witness.     The   Court   must
make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness.   The
Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a
possibility   of   the   child   witness   being   tutored.   Therefore,
scrutiny   of   the   evidence   of   a   child   witness   is   required   to   be
made by the Court with care and caution.
9. Before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a
Judicial   Officer   to   ask   preliminary   questions   to   him   with   a
view   to   ascertain   whether   the   minor   can   understand   the
questions   put   to   him   and   is   in   a   position   to   give   rational
answers.   The Judge must be satisfied that the minor is able
to   understand   the   questions   and   respond   to   them   and
understands the importance of speaking the truth.  Therefore,
the role of the Judge who records the evidence is very crucial.
He   has   to   make   a   proper   preliminary   examination   of   the
minor   by   putting   appropriate   questions   to   ascertain   whether
the   minor   is   capable   of   understanding   the   questions   put   to
him   and   is   able   to   give   rational   answers.   It   is   advisable   to
record   the   preliminary   questions   and   answers   so   that   the
Appellate   Court   can   go   into  the   correctness  of  the   opinion   of
the Trial Court.  
10. In   the  facts  of  the   case,  the   preliminary  examination  of
the  minor   is   very   sketchy.     Only  three  questions   were   put  to
the   minor   on   the   basis   of   which   the   learned   Sessions   Judge
came to the conclusion that the witness was capable of giving
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  7  of  12

answers  to   each  and  every  question.  Therefore,  the  oath  was
administered to him.  Following are the questions put to him:­
“ Q.  In which school you are studying?
Ans.   I   am   studying   in   Govt.   Primary
School, Barwashni. 
Q.  What is occupation of your father? 
Ans.  My father is a Pujari in a Mandir
named Hanuman, at Gohanba. 
Q.  Should one speak truth or false? 
Ans.  Truth.” 
11. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has
not done his duty. Nevertheless, we have carefully scrutinised
the   evidence   of   the   minor   witness   Ajay.     In   the   examination­
in­chief,   he   stated   that   on   the   night   of   30 th
  December   2002,
the accused entered his house by breaking a window.   While
the   appellant   held   his   mother   by   his   hands,   accused   no.1
assaulted   her   with   a   knife.     When   he   tried   to   rescue   his
mother,   accused   no.1   gave   a   blow   on   his   back   by   knife.     He
stated that he was hiding in the house after the accused fled
and he disclosed the incident to milkman Surender who came
to   the   house   at   5   a.m.     In   the   examination­in­chief,   he
deposed about the incident of cutting of crops on their family
land   by   accused   nos.1   and   2,   which   had   taken   place   6   to   7
months prior to the date of the offence.  He stated that though
the accused indulged in the said act, no action was taken as
the   appellant’s   father   apologised.   In   the   cross­examination
when the witness was confronted with his statement recorded
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  8  of  12

by the police, he admitted that this incident was not recorded
therein.   In   the   cross­examination,   the   witness   volunteered
that   the   accused   present   in   the   Court   had   murdered   his
mother and they were drunk.   However, he accepted that the
allegation   that   the   accused   were   drunk   was   not   recorded   in
his statement recorded by the police. 
12. The   incident   had   taken   place   after   midnight.     In   the
cross­examination,   the   witness   stated   that   the   accused,
before   coming   to   his   house,   had   disconnected   the   electric
supply. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that due
to darkness; he did not recognise the assailant who assaulted
his   mother.     He   came   out   with   the   improved   version   in   the
cross­examination that accused no.1 had lit a matchstick and
in the light of the matchstick, he recognised the assailants.  It
is   very   difficult   to   accept   that   accused   no.1   who   gave   6   to   7
blows by his knife on the person of the deceased, would light
a matchstick while assaulting the deceased.
13. At this stage, we  may  make  a reference  to  the evidence
of PW­6 Rajinder Singh, uncle of Ajay.  He claims that on 31 st
December 2002 when he had gone to the cattle shed at about
5   am,   he   heard   from   milkman   Golu   that   Satpal’s   wife   has
been done to death. He claims that he rushed to the house of
the deceased.  As PW­1 Ajay did not open the door, he jumped
over   the   wall   and   entered   the   house.   PW­1   Ajay   stated   that
PW­6 did not enter by jumping over the wall as he opened the
door   to   facilitate   the   entry   of   PW­6.     However,   PW­6   claims
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  9  of  12

that   intimation   was   given   to   police   only   after   his   brother
Satpal   (husband   of   the   deceased)   arrived.     PW­6   is   not   an
eyewitness.
14. According to the prosecution’s case till 5 am, PW­1 Ajay
was   hiding   in   his   house   and   only   when   the   milkman
Golu/Surender came at 5 am, he disclosed the incident to the
said   milkman.   In   fact,   even   PW­6   stated   that   he   became
aware   of   the   incident   from   the   said   milkman.     The
prosecution   has   not   explained   why   the   milkman   was   not
examined   as   a   witness,   though   he   was   available.   He   was   a
very important witness who was the first person to whom PW­
1 Ajay disclosed what he had allegedly seen. Till the milkman
came,   there   was   no   one   who   could   have   tutored   Ajay.
Therefore,   what   the   witness   conveyed   to   the   milkman   would
have been crucial in the context of the allegation of tutoring.
He was a very important witness available whose examination
could   have   ruled   out   the   possibility   of   the   witness   being
tutored as he was the first person to meet the minor witness
after the accident.  Afterwards, the minor was in the company
of   his   uncle   (PW­6)   and   his   father   and   according   to   the
prosecution’s   case,   there   was   some   dispute   between   the
family of Ajay  and the accused over  property.   His statement
was recorded in the hospital in presence of his father.   PW­6,
in   the   cross­examination,   stated   that   the   milkman   was
present   outside   the   Court   when   his   evidence   was   recorded.
His   evidence   was   recorded   on   22 nd
  December   2003.     On   the
same   day,   the   learned   Trial   Judge   recorded   statement   of   the
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  10  of  12

Public Prosecutor that he was not examining Satpal as being
unnecessary and he was dropping Golu (milkman) as he was
won over.   Even  the appellant’s  father  was a crucial  witness.
This   is   a   case   where   an   adverse   inference   will   have   to   be
drawn   against   the   prosecution   for   non­examination   of   the
milkman and the appellant’s father.
15. There   is   another   circumstance   which   is   relevant   as   far
as the appellant is concerned.   According to  the prosecution,
there   were   foot   marks   of   the   shoes/footwear   of   the   accused
near   the   house   where   the   incident   took   place.     The
prosecution took the moulds of the foot marks, as deposed by
PW­6.     The   footwear/shoes   of   both   the   accused   were   taken
into   custody   in   the   presence   of   PW­6.     But,   the   shoes   of   the
present appellant did not match the moulds of the imprint of
the shoe taken by the prosecution.  
16. Apart from the non­examination of the milkman, PW­11
Mehar Singh, Investigation Officer, did not make investigation
by   recording   the   statements   of   the   elder   brothers   of   Ajay   for
verifying whether they were away from the house on the date
of the incident. After closely scrutinising the evidence of PW­1
Ajay   and   considering   what   we   have   already   observed,   the
possibility   of   the   witness   being   tutored   cannot   be   ruled   out.
There is no support or corroboration to the testimony of PW­1
Ajay, apart from other deficiencies in the prosecution case, as
pointed out above.   In the facts of the case, it will not be safe
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  11  of  12

to   base   the   conviction   only   on   the   testimony   of   PW­1   Ajay
which does not inspire confidence.
17. Accordingly,   we   allow   the   appeal.   The   impugned
judgments of the High Court dated 12 th
 January 2009 and the
impugned   judgment   of   the   Trial   Court   dated   31 st
  January
2005   are   hereby   set   aside   and   the   appellant   is   acquitted   of
the offences alleged against him.   As the appellant is on bail,
his bail bonds stand cancelled.  
……..….……………J. 
(Abhay S. Oka) 
……...………………J. 
         (Rajesh Bindal) 
New Delhi; 
July 5, 2023.    
Criminal Appeal No.553 of 2012  Page  12  of  12