Relying on the testimony of a child witness and the presence of incriminating circumstances, the Supreme Court of India overturns the High Court decision and found two individuals guilty of murder.

The lankmark judgment in case of State of M.P. vs. Ramesh & Anr. arising out of (Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2005), was heard by the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (Gwalior Bench), which acquitted the respondents, Ramesh and Bhaggo Bai, of murder.

The High Court of Madya Pradesh at Jabalpur pronounced the judgment overturing the Sessions Court's conviction of the respondents (accused). The Sessions Court had found respondent No. 1, Ramesh, guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and respondent No. 2, Bhaggo Bai, guilty under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for conspiracy to murder.

Brief of the Case: A person by name "Chatra" was the husband of Bhaggo Bai was found dead in his house. Bhaggo Bai initially claimed that her husband had died after a fall due to a dizzy spell. However, her daughter, Rannu Bai (child), and another individual, Munna Lal, alleged that Chatra had been murdered by Bhaggo Bai (wife of the victim) and Ramesh (associate of Bhaggo Bai) and the police arrested Bhaggo Bai, and the case went to trial.

The post-mortem examination, conducted by Dr. D.K. Jain (P.W.8), determined that Chatra's death was caused by asphyxiation due to throttling. He found multiple injuries on Chatra's body, and the prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Rannu Bai (PW.1), Chatra and Bhaggo Bai's eight-year-old daughter. Rannu Bai stated that she had woken up to the sound of a disturbance and witnessed Ramesh attacking her father with a "Gumma," while her mother held him down. This account aligned with the injuries found on Chatra's body during the post-mortem examination, and Rannu Bai's testimony corrobrated consistently with the post-mortem examination.

Bhaggo Bai, in her testimony, claimed that Munna Lal (PW.2) had bolted the door of the room from the outside after Chatra's fall, a detail contradicted by other witnesses. Most witnesses, including those deemed hostile, stated the door had been bolted from the inside.

Question of Law: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, addressed the admissibility and reliability of child witness testimony. The court referred to various past judgments such as "Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726", to establish the legal framework for evaluating such testimonies. It concluded that while corroboration is desirable, a child's testimony can be solely relied upon if it inspires confidence and lacks embellishments.

the court held that "8. In Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that “the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable."

The court found the testimony of Rannu Bai (child) to be credible. The court noted that her testimony was supported by other witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and medical evidence. The court also scrutinized the testimony of a defense witness, Radha Bai, and found it unreliable due to her lack of understanding of the oath and the concept of right and wrong.

The Supreme Court ultimately found Madhya Pardesh High Court's decision to acquit the respondents perverse, as it contradicted the evidence presented. The Apex Court cited the incriminating circumstances surrounding Bhaggo Bai's actions after Chatra's death, including her delayed and inconsistent reporting of the incident to the police.

The court also examined the implications of Bhaggo Bai's statements given during the trial. It highlighted the legal framework surrounding statements made by an accused under Section 313 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found contradictions in Bhaggo Bai's statements, particularly regarding her relationship with Munna Lal, a key prosecution witness.

The Supreme Court focused on the credibility of Rannu Bai's testimony, as a child witness, for being clear, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence and enhancing its reliability. Thus the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. The court overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, reinstated the Sessions Court's conviction, and ordered the respondents to serve the remainder of their sentences.

CORAM: - JUSTICE (Dr.) B.S. CHAUHAN
BETWEEN: - STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH & ANR.
DOJ: - 18.03.2011