corporate law
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the landmark case of Ganesh Balai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Through PS Khajrana, pronounced on May 29, 2024, provided crucial insights on the evidentiary value of child witnesses. The judgment, published in 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 83, highlights the court's position that the testimony of a child, particularly in matters of severe crimes such as murder, should not be dismissed solely based on age.
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Hon’ble Shri Justice Hirdesh, upheld the conviction and sentence handed down by the Trial Court based on the evidence presented by an 8-year-old child, the sole eyewitness to a murder. The court emphasized the necessity of scrutinizing the reliability and quality of a child witness’s testimony when determining its admissibility.
The judgment commenced by clarifying that the appeal, as outlined in para 1, was filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. The appellant contended against the judgment from November 20, 2013, which convicted him of murder under Section 302 IPC, resulting in a life sentence and a fine of ₹10,000.
In para 2, the court detailed the prosecution's narrative: On April 11, 2012, Sheetal, daughter of both the deceased and the accused, reported to her grandfather that her father was attacking her mother. Together, they found Aarti on the floor covered in blood. The accused fled when confronted, leading to the report being filed at Khajrana Police Station.
Following thorough investigation and preparation of the charge sheet, the case was sent to the Sessions Court. The appellant denied the charges during the trial, asserting he was falsely implicated, yet failed to provide a defense witness.
The trial court found the appellant guilty, as noted in para 4. The judgment elucidated that despite the appellant's denial, the prosecution presented 12 witnesses to substantiate the claims against him.
In para 18, the court referred to Arjun Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reiterating the need for a careful evaluation of evidence from related witnesses, emphasizing that familial connections do not inherently discredit testimony.
The Division Bench underscored in para 22 that Sheetal provided a coherent account of the incident, detailing her observations without evidence of coaching. The court determined that she was a credible witness, reinforcing the principle that age does not automatically negate the potential for reliable testimony.
Citing the Evidence Act, 1872 in para 24, the court reaffirmed that there is no fixed age for competency. Section 118 emphasizes that all individuals, including children, are capable of testifying if they can comprehend and respond to questions, provided they demonstrate intellectual ability.
The Division Bench addressed the need for careful scrutiny of a child's testimony while recognizing its potential validity if the witness exhibits reliability and integrity.
The Division Bench corroborated findings from prosecution witnesses, solidifying the connection between the appellant and the crime demonstrated through physical evidence, such as blood-stained clothing.
In its final ruling in para 33, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the conviction and sentence as justified.
The judgment in Ganesh Balai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh represents a critical development in judicial approaches to child witnesses. The court's affirmation of the 8-year-old’s testimony highlights the necessity of recognizing the intellectual capacity of witnesses rather than relying solely on age. This landmark ruling enhances the framework through which all competent witnesses can be evaluated, promoting a more inclusive and fair judicial process.