Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010

Brief Facts

  • The Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 IPC by the Sessions Court, which was confirmed by the High Court. They approached the Apex Court on the ground that conviction based upon unreliable testimony of a child witness is not sustainable as the witness has failed to rightly identify the accused persons during the Identification Parade conducted during the trial. Though, the mother of the deceased (PW-4) was also one of the eye-witnesses of the incident, however, she could not identify any accused person during the course of trial.

Issues

  • What is the yardstick to evaluate the testimony given by a child witness?
  • Can the accused named by the witness be asked to stand out of dock while leaving the other accused to remain in dock, so as to facilitate the identification of the accused persons?

Held

  • The Apex Court acquitted the accused persons as the testimony of the child witness was not found to be reliable. The identity of the named accused assailants of the deceased had not been established in the Court beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances the conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the alleged recovery of the weapons.
  • It was held that Evidence of PW­3 cannot be rejected only on the ground that her age was 12 years. However, being a child witness, her evidence needs a very careful evaluation with greater circumspection considering the fact that a child witness can always be easily tutored.
  • The Apex Court held that the process of identification of the accused person at the behest of PW-3 (Child Witness) was not fair inasmuch as the 5 accused who were earlier identified by the Child were separated from the remaining accused persons which facilitated easy identification, which was unfair to the accused persons. It was held that the manner in which the minor witness identified the accused, it becomes unsafe to convict the accused based only on her testimony particularly when the other witness failed to identify any of the accused.

Relevant Para No.

  • 5, 8

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

"Disclaimer & Confirmation As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, user acknowledges the following:​

There has been no advertisements, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website; user wishes to gain more information about Mohit Khandelwal and Associates and its attorneys for his/her own information and use;

The information about us is provided to the user on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at their own volition and any transmission.

We are not responsible for any reliance that a user places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage.

However, the user is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources."