Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 20) overturned the murder conviction of a man accused of killing his wife and child, after finding that the child witness testimony relied upon by the trial court was suspect to tutoring and unsupported by any corroborating material.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had interfered with the trial court's decision to acquit the Appellant.

The prosecution's case was that the Appellant, residing separately with his deceased wife and two kids, had murdered the wife and one kid by strangulation while taking them on the pretext of a trip from Kanpur to Khajuraho. Among other aspects, the child witness, being of a tender age of 4 ½ years, became crucial for the determination of the Appellant's conviction. It was alleged that another kid (PW-28) of the Appellant managed to escape from the crime scene.

However, on the other hand, the child witness's testimony deposed contrary, saying he was present at the crime scene while the incident happened. Moreover, the child witness stated that he was tutored, saying that the Station House Officer had made him read his statement before going to the Court and had told him that the same statement was to be given before the Magistrate.

Even otherwise, the prosecution failed to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the chain of events remained incomplete to link the Appellant to the crime.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held that though there is “no inflexible rule requiring the testimony of a child witness to be corroborated before a conviction can be sustained, such corroboration is a rule of prudence which is to be ordinarily followed.”

The Court referred to the judgment of Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P (2003), where the court stated that the child witness of tender age is prone to tutoring; therefore, the court should always look for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony before relying on child witness testimonies.

The Court endorsed the trial court's approach in this regard:

“Tested against this standard, the Trial Court's insistence on independent corroboration of the child witness's account, given the specific and serious doubts as to tutoring as discussed below, cannot be said to be an unreasonable or impermissible approach.”, the Court said.

“…in absence of cogent evidence leading to the sole conclusion of guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.”, the Court held.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges, directing his release.

Cause Title: RAVI KUMAR SINGH MALHOTRA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Harsh Sethi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Arunav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Kashayap, Adv. Mr. Girish Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Vineet Jindal, Adv. Ms. Gulfeshan Javed, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Sukhpreet Maan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurbah Singh, Adv.

Tags: