Judgement Briefs

Evidence Law

Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra

(1997) 5 SCC 341

Citation
(1997) 5 SCC 341
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
8 May 1997
Bench
G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar JJ.

Facts

  • A dispute existed between Appa and his relatives concerning:
  • agricultural land;
  • use of a pathway.
  • Appa was working in his field.
  • His approximately ten-year-old daughter, Sarubai, was grazing cattle nearby.
  • Three accused persons allegedly entered the field and attacked Appa with:
  • axes;
  • a sickle.
  • Sarubai saw the assault and asked them to stop.
  • Appa suffered fatal injuries.
  • Sarubai immediately:
  • went towards the village;
  • informed others that her father had been assaulted;
  • named the accused.
  • At trial, the prosecution relied principally upon her eyewitness account.
  • Other witnesses supported:
  • her immediate conduct;
  • the message she delivered;
  • the condition in which Appa was found.
  • The defence argued that:
  • she was a young child;
  • she was related to the deceased;
  • she was easily susceptible to tutoring;
  • her evidence required independent corroboration.
  • The High Court accepted her testimony and convicted the accused.

Issue

  • Whether Sarubai was competent under Section 118.
  • Whether absence of oath or tender age made her testimony defective.
  • Whether her evidence was sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction.

Rule

  • Section 118 makes every person competent unless the court finds that the person cannot:
  • understand the questions;
  • provide rational answers.
  • Tender age does not automatically make a witness incompetent.
  • A child’s evidence may be received even without formal oath where the child possesses sufficient understanding.
  • Courts must exercise caution because children may be:
  • imaginative;
  • suggestible;
  • easily tutored.
  • Relevant safeguards include:
  • preliminary assessment of competency;
  • scrutiny of demeanour and answers;
  • examination of consistency;
  • consideration of possible tutoring.
  • A reliable child witness may independently support conviction.
  • Corroboration is desirable in doubtful cases but is not an absolute legal requirement.

Application

  • Sarubai was naturally present at the scene because she was grazing cattle near her father’s field.
  • Her presence was consistent with ordinary family and agricultural life.
  • She was not introduced as an eyewitness after prolonged investigation.
  • She clearly described:
  • which accused carried axes;
  • who used the sickle;
  • how her father was attacked;
  • what she did immediately afterwards.
  • Her conduct was spontaneous.
  • She left the field to obtain help and promptly named the assailants.
  • Witnesses receiving her message confirmed that she had given the same account at the earliest opportunity.
  • This significantly reduced the possibility of later tutoring.
  • The trial judge had the advantage of observing:
  • her comprehension;
  • manner of answering;
  • ability to narrate the event.
  • Minor variations were natural for a child recalling a traumatic occurrence.
  • They did not affect the central prosecution story.
  • Her relationship with Appa did not make her evidence inherently unreliable.
  • She had no convincing motive to:
  • protect the actual attackers;
  • falsely implicate innocent relatives.
  • Medical evidence concerning the injuries and weapons was consistent with her description.
  • The Court emphasised that childhood is not itself a reason for rejection.
  • The danger of tutoring must be assessed from:
  • the actual answers;
  • promptness of disclosure;
  • internal consistency;
  • surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that Sarubai was a competent and reliable child witness.
  • Even without a formal oath, her evidence was admissible under Section 118.
  • Her natural presence, prompt disclosure and consistent account inspired confidence.
  • The surrounding medical and factual evidence added assurance.
  • The convictions were upheld.
  • The case confirmed that a reliable child witness may form the sole basis of conviction.