Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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