Case Study: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh

"A credible and consistent child witness's testimony can form the sole basis for conviction, even without corroboration, and mere delay in recording their statement does not render it unreliable"

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012

Date of Judgment: 24^th February, 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: J.B. Pardiwala (J) and Manoj Misra (J)

Facts

• On the night of July 15, 2003, the accused, Balveer Singh, allegedly murdered his wife, Birendra Kumari, at their residence. The case against him was primarily built on the testimony of their seven-year-old daughter, Rani, who was an eyewitness to the incident. According to her statement, she saw her father grab her mother by the neck, assault her, and ultimately press her neck with his leg, leading to her death. Rani also stated that after her mother had died, her father, along with his sister, cremated the body in secrecy, without informing the authorities or the community.
• The prosecution argued that the accused’s actions demonstrated clear intent to eliminate evidence, as the body was disposed of without any proper legal procedures. The clandestine nature of the cremation raised further suspicion regarding the cause of death. Additionally, neighbors had reportedly heard screams from the house on the night of the incident, which stopped suddenly, further corroborating the theory of foul play.
• Following the complaint lodged by the deceased’s family, an investigation was initiated. The police registered a case under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court found the circumstantial evidence, combined with Rani’s testimony, sufficient to convict Balveer Singh.
• However, on appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction, acquitting the accused. The High Court doubted the reliability of Rani’s testimony due to an 18-day delay in recording her statement. It suggested that the child may have been tutored and influenced by her maternal family, with whom she was residing after the incident.
• Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and that the High Court had erred in disregarding Rani’s testimony without substantial justification.

Decision of the Lower Court (Trial Court)

The Trial Court found Balveer Singh guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The court relied heavily on the testimony of Rani, the child witness, who provided a clear and consistent account of the incident. The court also noted the circumstantial evidence, particularly the clandestine cremation of the deceased’s body, which suggested an intent to destroy evidence.

The court rejected the defense's claim that Rani had been tutored, stating that her testimony was natural, credible, and consistent throughout the proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution presented corroborative evidence, including witness statements and forensic findings, which strengthened the case against the accused. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced Balveer Singh to life imprisonment for murder and four years of rigorous imprisonment for destroying evidence, along with a fine.

Decision of the High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, upon appeal by the accused, overturned the conviction and acquitted Balveer Singh. The High Court expressed doubts about the credibility of Rani’s testimony, primarily due to an 18-day delay in recording her statement. The court found this delay significant enough to question the reliability of her testimony, suggesting that she may have been influenced or tutored by her maternal relatives, who had a strained relationship with the accused.

Additionally, the High Court pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and observed that the prosecution had not provided strong enough evidence beyond the child witness’s testimony to convict the accused. The court emphasized that in cases relying on child witnesses, corroboration was crucial, and in this instance, it found the corroborative evidence insufficient.

Due to these concerns, the High Court acquitted Balveer Singh, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal and reinstated the conviction. The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and found that the High Court had erred in disregarding the child witness’s testimony merely due to the delay in recording her statement.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child witness’s testimony is admissible and does not require corroboration if it is found credible and consistent. It emphasized that minor contradictions do not necessarily undermine the reliability of a child witness. The Court also held that the accused’s failure to explain his wife’s death, which occurred within the confines of their home, was a relevant factor under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court noted that Rani’s testimony was detailed, coherent, and not influenced by external factors. It also held that the High Court had applied an overly skeptical approach to her testimony without substantial reasoning. The clandestine cremation of the deceased further reinforced the prosecution’s case, indicating the accused’s involvement in the crime.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court’s judgment, holding Balveer Singh guilty of murder and destroying evidence, and reaffirmed his sentence of life imprisonment.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Is the testimony of a child witness admissible without corroboration?

Yes

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child witness’s testimony does not require corroboration if it is found credible and consistent. The Court observed in Paragraph 27 of the judgment referring to Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra[1] case noted that:

"There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanor of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever."

Additionally, the Court referenced Paragraph 31 of the judgment referring to Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka[2], observed:

"The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness."

The Court emphasized that minor contradictions in a child witness’s testimony do not necessarily undermine its credibility. The Supreme Court also clarified that while courts may insist on corroboration as a matter of caution, it is not a mandatory legal requirement.

The ruling thus reaffirmed that a child witness’s testimony, if found to be natural, consistent, and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring additional corroboration. The presence of independent circumstantial evidence further strengthened the reliability of the child witness’s testimony in this case.

After the completion of the hearing, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Balveer Singh, emphasizing that child witness testimony, if found credible, can form the sole basis for conviction. The ruling clarified the legal standards for evaluating child testimony and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in cases of unexplained deaths within a private household.

2. Was there a delay in recording the child witness’s statement?

Yes

There was an 18-day delay in recording the statement of the child witness, Rani (PW6), which was considered by the High Court while assessing the reliability of her testimony. The Supreme Court addressed this issue extensively and found that while the delay was present, it was not necessarily indicative of fabrication or tutoring.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay but emphasized that delay alone is not sufficient to discard the testimony of PW6. It ruled that the investigating officer was not questioned regarding the delay, and therefore, an adverse inference should not be drawn against the prosecution court in paragraph 39 observed that

"Indisputably, the police statement of PW6 came to be recorded after 18 days of the incident. Although the police was well aware that she was a vital witness to the entire case and could guide the investigation in the right direction, yet to mechanically discard her testimony solely on the ground of delay alone was not warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when no question in this regard was put to the IO so as to give him an opportunity to explain the reason for such delay."

The Supreme Court referred to Ranbir & Ors. v. State of Punjab[3], which held that delay in examining a witness during an investigation would only be material if it suggested unfair practice by the police to introduce false testimony​. Court in paragraph 40 observed that

"Delay in examining a witness during an investigation would be material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely support the prosecution case."

The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the High Court’s conclusion that the delay indicated tutoring. It held that the child witness’s testimony remained credible, and there was no evidence that the delay was deliberate or manipulated​. Thus, while the statement of the child witness was recorded late, the Supreme Court ruled that this delay did not undermine the credibility of her testimony.

[1] (1997) 5 SCC 341.

[2] (2001) 9 SCC 129.

[3] (1973) 2 SCC 444.

Download