Child Witness of Sterling Worth: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Husband Who Killed Wife in Presence of 9-Year-Old Daughter

Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act Not Discharged; Mere Denial is No Defence — Supreme Court of India (Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta) dismissed the appeal of Manohar Keshavrao Khandate, affirming his conviction for murdering his wife Ranjana inside their home. The case rested largely on the testimony of his 9-year-old daughter — a witness the Court described as “absolutely natural” and “of sterling worth” — corroborated by forensic and medical evidence.

Murder Within Four Walls, Eyewitness a Child

The incident occurred in Amravati, Maharashtra, where the accused lived with his wife and children. On the night in question, the couple’s 9-year-old daughter (PW-3) awoke to find her mother covered with a chaddar (bedsheet), her father seated beside her, and instructions not to look under the cover. When the father left the house, she uncovered the body to discover severe head injuries.

The trial court (14 August 2007) and the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (1 April 2011) both found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court’s judgment has now brought finality to the conviction.

The Child’s Testimony: Natural, Consistent, and Unshaken

PW-3 testified that her father often beat her mother after drinking. That night, she was sleeping beside her mother when she awoke to “some commotion” and noticed coughing. Her father told her Ranjana was unwell and forbade her from lifting the bedsheet. He then left and never returned.

When she finally looked under the sheet, she saw bleeding head injuries and immediately called their landlord, Arun Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1), who confirmed finding Ranjana unresponsive.

Despite cross-examination suggesting tutoring by relatives, the Supreme Court noted: “The child witness had no reason whatsoever to give false evidence implicating her own father for the murder of her mother.”

Corroboration: Landlord, Medical Jurist, and Forensic Evidence

The landlord’s testimony aligned with the child’s account, and medical evidence confirmed death from blunt head injuries. Crucially, the shirt worn by the accused at arrest was stained with blood of group A, matching the deceased’s blood type.

The Court stressed that the accused’s presence at the scene was admitted through cross-examination and that his explanation — a blanket denial under Section 313 CrPC — failed to meet the obligation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how his wife died in their home.

“The bald plea of denial… is clearly an after-thought and insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106.”

The Court’s Reasoning: Guilt Pointed Only to the Accused

The Bench observed that the accused was “the only able-bodied person present in the house apart from the child witness” and his conduct — concealing the body, stopping the child from looking, and absconding — “strongly suggests a guilty state of mind.”

Finding the child’s testimony “unimpeachable” and well-supported, the Court held:

“It is thus discernible that the accused-appellant and none else was responsible for causing the fatal injuries to his wife.”

Appeal Dismissed, Bail Cancelled

Upholding concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as “devoid of merits,” cancelled the bail granted in 2018, and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Date of Decision: 30 July 2025