Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the accused’s mother-in-law. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, observing that the assault with multiple weapons demonstrated premeditation and ruled out the application of Section 304 Part II. The Court held that the conviction was rightly based on the trustworthy testimony of a child eyewitness and corroborative medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence.
Facts
The accused and his wife had marital discord, with the wife alleging harassment and assault over suspicions about her chastity. She moved with her children to live with her mother (the deceased) in Jalna. Despite this, the accused regularly visited them to pressure his wife to return. On the night of the incident, the informant’s 10-year-old son witnessed the accused striking the grandmother with a tile, a wooden plank, and a knife after she refused to send the informant back with him. The child ran to inform his mother, who found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. A neighbour informed the police, and an FIR was registered. The accused was found drunk and wandering nearby. The trial court convicted him, prompting the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of a child witness?
- Whether the evidence sufficed to prove the charge of murder under Section 302?
- Whether the act could be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the trial court misappreciated the evidence. He argued that:
- The child witness (his son) was tutored and unreliable.
- The wife was not an eyewitness and the complaint should not be treated as the FIR.
- The murder weapons were not shown to the eyewitness.
- Medical and forensic evidence was insufficient.
- Recovery of the tile was doubtful as it was from an open place.
- CCTV footage was inadmissible for lack of proper certification under Section 65B.
- The act could, at most, constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that:
- The child witness’s presence at the scene was natural, and his testimony was detailed, coherent, and unshaken in cross-examination.
- Medical evidence confirmed death due to grievous head injuries, which aligned with the weapons described.
- Recovery of the tile with blood stains from a concealed location pointed to exclusive knowledge of the accused.
- Even without CCTV footage, other evidence independently established the chain of events.
- The use of three weapons indicated a brutal, determined act, ruling out applicability of Section 304 Part II.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reappreciated the evidence and emphasized that child witnesses can be reliable if their testimony is spontaneous and corroborated. It noted that sanctity is attached to such testimony when free from tutoring. The Court highlighted that:
- The child’s statement was consistent with medical and forensic evidence.
- Blood group B (of the deceased) was found on the wooden plank.
- The accused’s recovery of the tile from a hidden location was crucial under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- The presence of the accused near the crime scene soon after the incident and his intoxicated state further supported the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered and distinguished the cases of:
Both were cited to argue that child witness evidence could be unreliable. However, the Court found these precedents inapplicable due to lack of corroboration and circumstances of tutoring in those cases—unlike the present case, where the child’s testimony was independently corroborated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found no contradictions or material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. It held that:
“This cannot be a case involving death due to a single blow… Assaulting the deceased with three different weapons shows brutality and premeditated intention.”
It ruled that the act was not spontaneous but indicated clear motive and preparation. The recovery of weapons with the deceased’s blood and absence of any plausible explanation by the accused reinforced his guilt.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the life sentence. The appeal was dismissed with the observation:
“No benefit of doubt can be extended… The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective.”
Implications
- Reinforces the evidentiary value of child witnesses when their accounts are natural, untainted, and corroborated.
- Clarifies that multiple, deliberate assaults with varied weapons establish intention and rule out culpable homicide.
- Reaffirms that motive, weapon use, and concealment behaviour weigh heavily in murder convictions.
FAQs
Q1. Can a child’s testimony alone convict an accused of murder?
Yes, if the child’s statement is spontaneous, detailed, free from tutoring, and corroborated by other evidence.
Q2. Is CCTV footage always necessary in murder trials?
No, it is only corroborative. Conviction can be based on other trustworthy evidence even if CCTV footage is excluded.
Q3. What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide in such cases?
Murder involves intention and premeditation, as evidenced by use of multiple weapons here, while culpable homicide lacks such degree of intent.
