Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Subhash Balkrushna Buradkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2013 for offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the POCSO offences, with default imprisonment, and for the IPC offence. The appellant, who had been in jail since 5th July 2013, appealed against the conviction. The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of a nine-year-old girl child witness, 'V' (PW 1). The appellant's counsel argued that while conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness, such evidence must be trustworthy and without infirmity. In this case, the child witness admitted in cross-examination that her police statement was recorded as told by her grandmother, and she was taught by her grandmother how to give evidence in court. Additionally, the child witness did not state that she knew the accused previously or identified him in a Test Identification Parade, and no questions were asked by the prosecution regarding identification. The court found that the evidence of the child witness was tutored and unreliable, and there was a serious doubt about the identity of the appellant. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's release unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Child Witness - Reliability - Sole Testimony - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of a witness if trustworthy and without infirmity - In the instant case, the child witness 'V' (PW 1) admitted that her police statement was recorded as told by her grandmother and that she was taught how to give evidence - The evidence was found to be tutored and unreliable - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on such evidence (Paras 2-3). B) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Test Identification Parade - Necessity - The child witness did not state that she knew the accused previously or identified him in the Test Identification Parade - No question was asked by the prosecution regarding identification - Held that there is serious doubt about the identity of the appellant-accused (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the sole testimony of a child witness who admitted being tutored and failed to identify the accused.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of a witness if trustworthy and without infirmity
- Child witness evidence must be scrutinized with care
- Identification of accused is essential
- Tutoring of witness renders evidence unreliable
