Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"Child Witnesses' Testimony Found Truthful, Consistent, and Natural": Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction in Murder and Kidnapping Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of Smt. Sangita Vilas Kiwade in a case involving the murder of a child, attempted murder of two others, kidnapping, and violation of the Bombay Money Lender's Act.

The judgment, delivered by the bench of Justices GAURI GODSE and REVATI MOHITE DERE on 4th July 2023, emphasized the credibility of the child witnesses. The court observed that the "evidence of 3 child witnesses i.e. Rohit, Rahul, and Anmol is truthful, consistent, and natural." [Para 20]

The incident occurred on 18th November 2010, where the appellant allegedly kidnapped four children and pushed three of them into a canal, resulting in the death of one child. The appellant was also accused of carrying out an illegal money-lending business.

The defense had argued that the child witnesses were tutored, but the court found no material contradictions in their testimony. The court further noted that the evidence on record "clearly reveals that the act of throwing three-year-old child Tejas into the canal was so imminently dangerous that the appellant had knowledge that, in all probabilities, it would cause his death." [Para 23]

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Pradeep Vs. The State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the importance of careful scrutiny of child witnesses' evidence.

The judgment confirmed the convictions under Section 363 of IPC (kidnapping), Section 302 of IPC (murder), and Section 32-B(b) of the Bombay Money Lending Act, dismissing the appeal.

The ruling underscores the importance of child witnesses' testimony in criminal cases and sets a precedent for the careful examination of such evidence.

 

Date of Decision: 4th JULY 2023

Yerwada Central Prison vs The State of Maharashtra 

Latest Legal News