“At the outset, we must note the perspective from which the evidence of a child witness is to be considered. The caution expressed by this Court in Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 that, “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well-accepted principle. In Suryanarayana, after setting out the guiding principles for appreciation and consideration of the evidence of a child witness, this Court had found, there were no doubts at all with regard to the veracity to the testimony of the child witness, nor were there any inherent defects. However, such doubts and defects are quite evident in the present matter.”

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Hari Om v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2017].

_____

We are reminded of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer’s observations in Dharm Das Wadhwani v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 267: “The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct.”

Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777 emphasized on importance of preliminary examination of a child witness. It held, questions put to a child in a preliminary examination must also be recorded so that Appellate Court can go into correctness of opinion of Trial Court.

State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786 held, even if statement of a child witness is found to be tutored it can be relied upon, if same is found to be believable or inspires confidence after separating tutored part from untutored portion.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, [Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012] decided on 24.02.2025.

_____

Also see, State of Rajasthan v. Chatra, [Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017] decided on 18.03.2025.