Accused just need to create doubt in the prosecution story - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that while it is the prosecution's responsibility to establish the accusation, the standard of proof placed on an accused person in favour of a defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed in acquitting a lady accused of killing her sister-in-law that the accused can only raise a question; the prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused cannot benefit from the incident.

At one instance, the victim had 95 percent burn injuries and passed away in the couple's house after about 1.5 years of marriage. The only eye witness was the deceased's younger brother, who was between the ages of 11 and 12. Murder charges were brought against the deceased's sister-in-law and the other defendants. The Trial Court found her guilty based on the testimony of the young witness who claimed that she had placed a piece of cloth in the deceased's mouth before being set ablaze by the other defendants. Her appeal was denied by the High Court.

In her statement made pursuant to Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed in her appeal that she had taken the specific defence that she lived in her marriage residence, which was separate and distant. Furthermore, it was argued that the failure to present the child witness's accusation to her in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code deprived her of a crucial opportunity for defence and rendered her conviction void.

From her mouth, nothing closed was deposed.

The dead spoke while being transported to the hospital, the witness testified, and at no point did the witness claim that the cloth was removed from her lips. The bench stated, "It makes sense that if cloth was stuffed in the deceased's mouth, she would not have been able to speak." The bench further noted that the doctor who conducted the post mortem confirmed that there was no cloth in the deceased's mouth and that all 32 teeth were in good condition.

The bench stated, "The discussion and reasoning by the trial court that absence of any cloth in the mouth was irrelevant because if the deceased suffered 100% burns the cloth naturally could not be available, suggesting that it would have also been burnt is completely fallacious." The bench also noted that the child witness evidence in this case attributing a specific role to the accused is not of such a sterling quality as to inspire confidence in the court to find the accused not guilty.

She was the deceased's own daughter-in-law.

She shared a daughter-in-law relationship with the deceased. It is extremely implausible that she would have taken such activities given the nature of the evidence. The appellant must be given the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances, the bench ruled while overturning the accused's conviction.

A kid witness cannot be discredited by the mere absence of any supporting evidence except from that provided by the child witness.

Even though the court in this case did not believe the child witness, it stated that criminal law does not maintain that a child witness' testimony is unreliable and should be discounted.

"A child who is 11 to 12 years old undoubtedly has a reasonably developed capacity for perception, assimilation, and appreciation. The testimony of a juvenile witness alone may also be sufficient evidence to support a conviction in a particular case. A kid witness cannot be discredited by the sheer absence of any supporting evidence except from that provided by the child witness. However, the courts have frequently ruled that when a kid witness is involved, and especially when he is the only witness, the evidence must be scrutinised more closely so that the judge can be confident in the validity and veracity of the child witness' testimony. PW-2 underwent testing over a year after the incident. The Court must therefore be confident that any tutoring or other possibilities are eliminated and that the deposition contained only the truth.

Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh