Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan

Facts

The accused Rameshwar was charged under Section 376 IPC with raping Mst. Purni, a girl of about eight years. The child told her mother of the incident about four hours afterwards. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250, but the Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted him, holding that although he was morally certain the offence was committed there was insufficient corroboration. The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction, and the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether the evidence of a child witness under twelve, to whom no oath was administered, is admissible and competent.
• Whether corroboration of the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual offence case is required as a matter of law or only as a matter of prudence.
• What is the nature and extent of corroboration required, and whether the prosecutrix's previous statement to her mother could amount to corroboration under Section 157 IEA.

Arguments

The appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable because the child's evidence was unsworn and therefore inadmissible, and because there was no legally sufficient independent corroboration of the prosecutrix, the rule requiring corroboration being mandatory. The State contended that omission of an oath went only to credibility and not competency, that corroboration was a rule of prudence which the court could dispense with for reasons recorded, and that the child's prompt complaint to her mother furnished corroboration under Section 157.

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. It held that under Section 118 IEA a child is a competent witness and, by virtue of Section 13 of the Indian Oaths Act, the omission to administer an oath affects only the credibility of the witness and not the admissibility or competency of the evidence, though as a matter of caution the judge should certify that the child understood the duty to speak the truth. On corroboration, the Court held that the prosecutrix in a sexual case is not an accomplice, but the practice of looking for corroboration has, by long judicial usage, hardened into a rule of prudence; corroboration is not an absolute condition of conviction, and a judge may convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix provided he is conscious of the rule and records why it is safe to do so in the particular case. Applying King v Baskerville, the Court held the corroborating evidence need not confirm every detail but must be independent and reasonably connect the accused with the crime, and that the prosecutrix's complaint to her mother roughly four hours after the incident was admissible under Section 157 IEA and amounted to corroboration, the delay being natural for a young child seeking her mother.

Ratio decidendi

The testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual offence need not be corroborated as a matter of law; corroboration is only a rule of prudence which a court may dispense with for reasons recorded. A child is a competent witness and the omission to administer an oath goes only to credibility, not competency or admissibility. A previous statement made by a witness at or about the time of the fact is admissible under Section 157 IEA and can serve as corroboration.

Significance

A foundational Indian authority on the appreciation of the evidence of a prosecutrix and of child witnesses, settling that corroboration is a rule of prudence and not an inflexible rule of law, and that unsworn child testimony is admissible. It has been consistently followed (and reinforced in cases such as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v State of Gujarat and State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh) and remains good law. Under the new code the same principles operate: child competency under Section 124 BSA, the accomplice/corroboration rules under Sections 119 illustration (b) and 138 BSA, and previous statements as corroboration under Section 160 BSA, which carry forward the corresponding provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Related