1951 (12) TMI 10 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Witness Rape Case

RAMESHWAR S/O KALYAN SINGH Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction in a rape case involving a child witness. The Court clarified that corroboration is not legally ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of the evidence of a child witness.2. Requirement and nature of corroboration in rape cases.3. Admissibility of previous statements as corroboration.4. Independence of witnesses providing corroboration.Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of the Evidence of a Child Witness:The appellant was charged with rape, and the primary witness was the victim, a young girl aged seven or eight. The Assistant Sessions Judge did not administer an oath to the child, as she did not understand its sanctity, but still recorded her testimony. The legal question was whether the evidence was admissible without a formal certification that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth.The Court referred to the proviso to section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, and section 118 of the Evidence Act. The proviso allows a child under twelve to testify without an oath if they understand the duty of speaking the truth. Section 118 states that every witness is competent unless the court considers otherwise due to reasons like tender age. The Court concluded that the omission to administer an oath affects credibility, not competency. The evidence was deemed admissible as the judge implicitly considered the child competent by recording her testimony.2. Requirement and Nature of Corroboration in Rape Cases:The Sessions Judge initially acquitted the accused, citing insufficient legal proof despite moral conviction, as he believed corroboration was necessary. The High Court, however, found the girl's statement to her mother admissible as corroboration and convicted the accused. The Supreme Court clarified that the Evidence Act does not mandate corroboration for conviction. The rule about corroboration is a matter of prudence, not law. The necessity for corroboration should be present in the judge's mind, but it can be dispensed with if the judge finds it safe to do so based on the case's facts. The Court cited Lord Reading's exposition in The King v. Baskerville, emphasizing that corroboration is not legally essential but advisable as a matter of prudence.3. Admissibility of Previous Statements as Corroboration:The Court examined whether the girl's statement to her mother could serve as corroboration. Section 157 of the Evidence Act allows former statements made by a witness at or about the time of the fact to be used for corroboration. The girl's statement to her mother, made about four hours after the incident, was considered timely and thus admissible. The Court noted that while the evidentiary value of such statements may vary, their legal admissibility as corroboration is unquestionable.4. Independence of Witnesses Providing Corroboration:The Court addressed whether the mother could be considered an independent witness. Independence means being free from sources likely to be tainted. The Court found no reason to doubt the mother's independence, as there was no enmity against the accused, and the suggestion of bad terms was not believed by any court. The corroboration provided by the mother's testimony was deemed sufficient.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's conviction. The appellant was directed to surrender to his bail and serve out his sentence and pay the fine. The judgment emphasized that while corroboration is a rule of prudence, it is not a legal necessity, and the admissibility of a child's testimony without an oath depends on the judge's implicit or explicit consideration of the child's understanding of the duty to speak the truth.