In a crucial ruling concerning the evidentiary value of a child witness in a homicide trial, the Bombay High Court addressed whether a 10-year-old’s testimony, alleged to be the product of tutoring, could form the basis for sustaining a conviction for murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The case arose from the brutal killing of the witness’s grandmother and raised significant questions regarding the reliability of minor witnesses, the sufficiency of corroborative forensic evidence, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide. Read on to explore how the Court navigated these issues within the framework of settled legal principles.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from the murder of Sakkhubai Kale, mother-in-law of the appellant Vijay Kishan Dhillod. The appellant’s marriage with Jyoti, Sakkhubai’s daughter, had been strained due to his suspicions about her chastity, resulting in frequent abuse. Jyoti and her six children were living with Sakkhubai, while the appellant resided in Aurangabad and persistently pressured Jyoti to return, which both she and Sakkhubai refused, prompting threats from him. On the night of the incident, Jyoti stayed away due to the appellant’s presence in the area. Around midnight, her son Yash informed her that the appellant had attacked Sakkhubai at her workplace. Jyoti found her mother dead in a pool of blood. A police report was filed, and the appellant was arrested and charged under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court, citing procedural lapses and improper appreciation of evidence.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and wrongly framed the charge. He contended that the CCTV footage was inadmissible without proper certification, and that Jyoti’s complaint was not a valid FIR but merely based on third-party information. The sole eyewitness, 10-year-old Yash, was said to be unreliable due to possible tutoring, and the prosecution failed to show him the alleged weapons, weakening his testimony. It was further submitted that the recovery of the tile was doubtful due to the presence of similar tiles at the spot, no blood was found on the appellant’s clothes, and the medical evidence did not link him to the crime. Relying on relevant precedents, the appellant claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The prosecution maintained that the appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of 11 witnesses forming a complete chain of circumstances. It argued that the 10-year-old eyewitness’s presence at the scene was natural, his testimony was consistent, and he denied being tutored. His account was supported by the informant and medical evidence, which confirmed the homicidal nature of the death. The prosecution contended that showing the weapons to the child was unnecessary, and even without the CCTV footage, the recovery of a blood-stained tile at the appellant’s instance further strengthened the case. It sought dismissal of the appeal, asserting that the trial court’s decision was justified.
Observation of the Court:
The Court meticulously evaluated the evidence and upheld the trial court’s conviction of Vijay Kishan Dhillod under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the child eyewitness, noting, “his presence on the spot was but natural and he had given true accounts of the facts as he had every opportunity to watch the incriminating act of the appellant/accused.” The Court found that Yash’s account was corroborated by the informant, Jyoti , and supported by medical evidence from Dr. Raju Jadhav, who confirmed Sakkhubai’s homicidal death due to “hemorrhagic shock due to head injury” caused by a tile, wooden plank, and knife, consistent with Yash’s testimony. The Court addressed the appellant’s contention regarding potential tutoring of Yash, stating, “this witness has straightway denied such suggestion and stated that he was never taught by anyone as to how he should depose in the court,” reinforcing the sanctity of a child witness’s testimony when free from tutoring.
The Court further validated the recovery of a blood-stained tile, as testified by witness Vijay Sadarwale, observing, “the very act of appellant/accused suggests that only he was having special knowledge as to where the said piece of tile was hidden.” Forensic evidence confirmed human blood on the tile and knife, and the deceased’s blood group on the wooden log, strengthening the prosecution’s case. The Court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on CCTV footage admissibility concerns, stating, “even if the electronic evidence in form of CCTV footage is kept aside, then also there is strong evidence on record against the appellant/accused.” The Court also addressed the motive, noting, “the appellant/accused was definitely having grudge against the deceased” due to her refusal to send Jyoti with him, which precipitated the fatal assault.
On the appellant’s argument that the offence might constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II of the IPC due to a prior quarrel, the Court clarified, “it has been established that the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased i.e. an old lady mercilessly by three articles namely piece of tile, wooden plank and knife,” indicating premeditation and ruling out a single-blow scenario, which distinguished the case from culpable homicide, affirming the murder charge under Section 302. The Court rejected the applicability of cited precedents, such as Shankar Babarao Agaldare vs State of Maharashtra, due to the presence of corroborative evidence and the absence of tutoring in this case. The Court concluded that the trial court “rightly considered the entire evidence on record in proper perspective,” finding no reason to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court upheld the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 imposed by the trial court, finding no merit to warrant interference with the impugned judgment.
Case Title: Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2023
Coram: Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Sohel Siddiqui
Advocate for Respondent: A.P.P. S.N. Deshmukh
Picture Source :
