Headnote

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused, holding that a conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of a minor child witness unless proper judicial inquiry under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act is conducted. The Court stressed the need for corroboration and procedural safeguards in criminal trials.

Introduction

The case of Pradeep v. State of Haryana, decided on 5 July 2023, revolved around the murder of a woman and the attempted murder of her minor son. The prosecution’s case depended almost entirely on the testimony of the child witness, Ajay. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a conviction could be sustained without proper judicial inquiry into the competence of the child witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of crucial corroborative witnesses.

Facts of the Case

• On 30 December 2002, a woman was murdered and her minor son Ajay injured.

• Ajay, aged around 11 at the time, became the sole eyewitness and identified the accused, Pradeep, and his co-accused.

• The Sessions Court convicted both accused under Sections 302, 307, 449, and 324 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

• The High Court upheld the conviction.

• The appeal reached the Supreme Court, where the reliability of Ajay’s testimony and procedural compliance under Section 118 were challenged.

Issue of the Case

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC could be sustained solely on the testimony of a child witness, without proper judicial inquiry into competence and without examining key independent witnesses?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The child’s evidence was unreliable, full of contradictions, and possibly tutored.

• No proper inquiry under Section 118 of the Evidence Act was conducted before recording testimony.

• Key witness (milkman Surender), to whom Ajay first disclosed the incident, was not examined.

• Forensic evidence, like shoeprint mismatch, further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Respondent’s Arguments

• A child witness is legally competent under Section 118, and Ajay clearly identified the accused.

• Corroboration is not a strict requirement if the testimony is found credible.

• Minor contradictions did not undermine Ajay’s reliability.

• Both Trial Court and High Court had already examined the testimony and upheld conviction.

Judgment

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and set aside the conviction. The Court held:

• Child witness testimony requires strict scrutiny; preliminary inquiry under Section 118 must be recorded.

• Only three superficial questions were asked to Ajay, which was insufficient to establish competence.

• Non-examination of the milkman, the first person informed, was a serious lapse.

• Contradictions in Ajay’s testimony and lack of corroboration made conviction unsafe.

• Forensic evidence (shoeprint mismatch) also raised doubts.

Accordingly, the conviction was overturned, and Pradeep was acquitted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reinforced that while child witnesses are competent, their testimony must be approached with caution. Courts must record satisfaction of the child’s ability to understand and speak the truth, and corroborative evidence is crucial. This judgment highlights the importance of fair trial safeguards, ensuring that convictions rest on reliable and legally tested evidence rather than procedural shortcuts.