25 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Child a Competent Witness: Supreme Court Summarizes Law on Child Witness Testimony

• Case- The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh
• Date of Order- February 24, 2025
• Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Accused's Crime: The accused was charged with the murder of his wife and the subsequent cremation of her body in a clandestine manner. The murder took place within the confines of the family home, with only the couple's 7-year-old daughter present.

Initial Court Ruling: The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

High Court's Acquittal: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the accused, leading the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Child Witness Testimony: The testimony of the 7-year-old daughter, who witnessed the incident, was central to the case. She testified that her father assaulted her mother, leading to her death, and later cremated the body in secret.

Concerns about Tutoring: The High Court had raised concerns about the reliability of the child’s testimony, mainly due to an 18-day delay in recording her statement. There were doubts that the child may have been tutored.

Supreme Court's Findings:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of the child was credible and consistent, despite the delay in recording her statement.
• The Court emphasized that a child witness is competent to testify under Section 118 of the Evidence Act if they can understand the questions and provide rational answers.
• The Court held that the testimony of a child does not need corroboration if it is credible, and it found no evidence that the child had been tutored.
• The Supreme Court also explained the guidelines for recording and evaluating child witnesses' testimonies in legal proceedings.

Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, overturning the High Court's acquittal, and convicted the accused based on the child's testimony and circumstantial evidence.

2. Courts Should Not Lightly Interfere With Personal Liberty: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Cancelling Bail

• Case- Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
• Date of Order- February 20, 2025
• Bench- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan

Case Background: The appellant-accused was charged under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial was ongoing, with 17 out of 43 prosecution witnesses already examined.

Initial Bail Grant: The appellant had been in jail for two years and applied for bail. The bail was granted to the appellant by the lower court.

High Court's Cancellation of Bail: On appeal, the High Court canceled the appellant's bail. The High Court believed the appellant's presence at the crime scene and the injury caused to the complainant, even though it was simple, indicated common intention, thus invoking Section 34 of the IPC.

Reference to Previous Case: The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr, which outlined factors to consider when cancelling bail, such as misuse of liberty, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or using delaying tactics.

Supreme Court's Intervention:

• The Supreme Court observed that an individual's liberty is a fundamental right under the Constitution and should not be interfered with lightly.
• The Court found that there was no evidence showing the accused had misused his liberty after bail, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, or delayed the trial.
• The Court noted that the High Court had conducted a "mini-trial" instead of focusing on whether there were valid reasons for canceling the bail, and the High Court did not consider factors such as witness tampering, misuse of liberty, or delaying tactics.

Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the bail. It also clarified that it had not assessed the merits of the case, and the appellant was required to appear before the Trial Court on the fixed dates. Failure to do so would lead to the cancellation of the bail.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal and reinstated the bail order.

3. If a Man’s Intention While Making Promise to Marry is to Deceive A Girl into Sexual Relations, Her Consent Gets Vitiated: Bombay High Court

• Case- Rupchand Shende vs. State of Maharashtra
• Date of Order- February 21, 2025
• Bench- Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke

Case Overview: The Bombay High Court upheld the rape conviction of Rupchand Shende, who was accused of raping a minor by making false promises of marriage.

Accusation: The victim (under 16 years old) filed a FIR against Shende in 2019, alleging that he established contact with her, promised to marry her, and then engaged in sexual relations with her multiple times. When she became pregnant, he refused to marry her.

Court's Ruling: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke stated that when a promise to marry is false and the intention from the beginning is to deceive the girl into sexual relations, it constitutes a "misconception of fact" that invalidates the girl's consent. The court emphasized that the victim's consent was irrelevant due to her age.

Accused's Argument: Shende argued that the victim had a one-sided love affair with him and that they engaged in sexual relations based on her desire to marry him.

Court's Rejection of Accused's Argument: The court found Shende's engagement with the victim to be not bona fide since the beginning, as he completely misled her by promising marriage.

Key Evidence: The court considered the medical evidence and DNA test results, which confirmed that Shende was the father of the child born to the victim.

Appeal: Shende appealed his conviction under charges of rape and provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, challenging the ten-year sentence imposed on him by a special POCSO court in Bhandara district.

Final Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed Shende's appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence.