Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sole testimony in Ranjit Kumar @ Langra vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2025Matching Fragments
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the evidence of P.W.2 Satyam Kumar, being a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.47 of 2020 dt.17-09-2025 child witness also needs to be scrutinized with great care and caution. He has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 23 of the evidence of P.W.2 by stating that the story of appellant having started committing the offence with his brother and then committed the act with him after 20-25 minutes, does not seem to be a believable proposition. Thus, looking into the evidence of P.W.2 in its entirety, the same does not inspire confidence. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down principles for considering the competence of a child witness and as to whether in absence of some preliminary questions being put by the learned Court with regard to his capability of understanding questions and giving referral answers, credence can be given to the testimony of such child witness. A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2003(3) SCC 21, has taken into consideration the question of competence of a child witness and has held that it would be hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness in case the same has not been made immediately after the occurrence, giving scope of possibility of tutoring him. Paragraph nos. 19 and 22 of the said judgment are being quoted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.47 of 2020 dt.17-09-2025 hereunder:-
"19. The law recognises the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied upon without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony.
22. It is hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness as it is not available immediately after the occurrence of the incident and before there were any possibility of coaching and tutoring him. (See paras 14-15 of State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed [(1983) 2 SCC 14 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 325] .) In that case evidence of a child witness was appreciated and held unreliable thus:
47. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of P.W.2 is also to be viewed from the angle that while P.W.2, the victim has stated about his statement being recorded by the police on the date of occurrence with his signature being appended thereupon, as is apparent from paragraph no.35 of his deposition, which was not treated as the first information report, the evidence of the Investigating Officer reveals that the statement of P.W.2 was first recorded after one month of the occurrence. The two positions cannot be reconciled. The statement of P.W.2, which is thus being considered is the one which was recorded after a month at his house after coming back from hospital, which is after a substantial delay and this delay becomes a vital consideration for doubting the testimony of P.W.2 Satyam Kumar, as it becomes vulnerable to be attached as a tutored version. Further, no independent corroboration has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.47 of 2020 dt.17-09-2025 been provided to the testimony of P.W.2 by any independent quarters in the form of other prosecution witnesses and neither the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 nor the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 who are the independent witnesses, have lent any support or corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2. Thus, in absence of any adequate corroboration, it is totally unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of such a witness. In the words of Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), it is hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of a child witness who was not immediately available after the occurrence and before there was any possibility of coaching and tutoring him.