Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court found that circumstances in the instant case constituted more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had happened on the day & date his wife died.
In the instant case a husband was charged for the murder of his wife who died in mysterious circumstances by the Trial Court; however, MP High Court acquitted the husband as it found the child witness to be tutored.
The Court found that circumstances in the case constitute more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had happened on the day & date his wife died.
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
“The evidence of a child witness can easily be influenced by the elders in the family. Acceptance of the child witness evidence would be dangerous in the present circumstances of the case as the evidence appears to be a result of tutoring. Not examining the father and grandfather of the victim, who were sleeping by the side of the victim girl is fatal to the prosecution case”.
“There is no rule that in case of every child witness, the trial Court should conduct a preliminary examination. It is only a rule of prudence and not a legal obligation. ”
Mere accompaniment of uncle to visit court for recording statement under section 164 of CrPC is not good ground or submission to hold that the child was tutored.
“In cases involving child witnesses, the Court should consider the child’s age, competency, and demeanor and may uphold a conviction even in the absence of other corroborating witnesses if the victim’s testimony is deemed reliable.”
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Kerala High Court held that child witness can be recalled for examination; bar under Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is not absolute.
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Soumen Sen and Rabindranath Samanta, JJ., dismissed a criminal appeal which was filed against the
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., opined that where the witness is of tender age (as in the instant case before the
Delhi High Court: Emphasising the reliability on the child victim’s testimony, Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., dismissed the appeal filed and the conviction
Allahabad High Court: Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., while addressing the present jail appeal held that, “…in cases involving sexual assault/rape, it is
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Sunil P. Deshmukh and B.U. Debadwar, JJ., upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and
Tripura High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, CJ and Arindam Lodh, J. admitted the deposition of the prosecution witness
Kerala High Court: In the order passed by Sunil Thomas, J., the Court addressed the issue whether a minor is competent enough
Uttaranchal High Court: The Court recently addressed a criminal petition in which the appellant had appealed against his conviction by trial court
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vinod Goel, J, upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 of
Delhi High Court: Dealing with a case where a five-year-old girl “X” was raped by her neighbour, a bench of S.P. Garg