The Bombay High Court has affirmed that the testimony of a child witness, when found credible and consistent, can sustain a conviction for attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC, even in the absence of independent corroboration. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that while courts must scrutinize child testimony with care, mere allegations of tutoring are insufficient to reject it outright.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Vishwanath Kashinath Savle, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly stabbing Savita Mangaldas Ahire (PW2), an anganwadi worker, and her minor daughter, Akanksha (PW3), on 01.01.2020. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a prior dispute over a complaint filed by Savita against another woman, attacked them with a knife while they were answering nature’s call near a water tank in Soygaon, Aurangabad.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 01.01.2020 at approximately 7:30 p.m.
- Savita (PW2) and her daughter Akanksha (PW3) were returning from a field near a water tank when the appellant, wearing black clothing, approached them from a cotton field
- Savita sustained four to five stab wounds to the abdomen and thigh; Akanksha sustained a stab wound to the right hand
- The knife was reportedly broken into two pieces at the scene
- Savita was admitted to Ghati Hospital and later referred to a rural hospital
- The appellant had previously threatened Savita, stating he would "kill her and abscond" after the court date
- Savita and Akanksha had prior acquaintance with the appellant but no personal grudge
- The incident occurred in darkness
- Savita’s husband, Mangaldas (PW1), was not present during the assault but received the child’s report and rushed to the scene
- Anil Jadhav (PW5), a village resident, witnessed Savita lying injured and confirmed the presence of the broken knife
- The knife and clothing of both victim and accused were seized under panchanamas (PW4, PW7, PW8)
Procedural History
- 01.01.2020: Incident occurred
- 02.01.2020: FIR registered at Police Station, Soygaon
- 15.01.2020: Charge sheet filed under Sections 307, 324 IPC
- 12.03.2020: Trial commenced before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Aurangabad
- 31.05.2025: Trial Court convicted appellant under Sections 307 and 324 IPC
- 16.04.2026: Criminal Appeal No.596 of 2025 decided by Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: Counsel argued that the prosecution case was based on tutored testimony of the child witness, lacked independent corroboration, and was tainted by prior enmity. He contended that the injuries were not sufficient to establish intent to kill, and that the trial court failed to appreciate contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3.
For the Respondents: The State and the victim’s counsel defended the conviction, emphasizing the consistency between the injured witnesses’ accounts, the medical evidence of grievous injuries, and the absence of any credible evidence of tutoring.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC and that the conviction was based on unreliable testimony.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the testimony of a child witness, when found credible and consistent with the injured mother’s account and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 307 IPC, even in the absence of independent eyewitnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra and Hari Om v. State of U.P. to argue that child witnesses are inherently vulnerable to tutoring and that their testimony must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. He contended that the prosecution failed to disprove the possibility of collusion due to prior enmity, and that the absence of independent eye-witnesses rendered the case speculative. He further argued that the injuries, though grievous, did not demonstrate the specific intent to cause death required under Section 307 IPC.
For the Respondent
The State and victim’s counsel emphasized that the child witness (PW3) and the injured mother (PW2) provided consistent, detailed accounts of the assault, including the time, location, clothing of the assailant, and the breaking of the knife. They cited Hari Om v. State of U.P. to argue that discrepancies in minor details do not invalidate testimony, and that corroboration is a prudential rule, not a legal requirement. The medical evidence of multiple stab wounds to vital areas, coupled with the appellant’s prior threats, was submitted as conclusive proof of intent to kill.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence, particularly focusing on the credibility of the child witness, PW3. It acknowledged the appellant’s contention that child witnesses are susceptible to tutoring but held that such a possibility alone cannot lead to rejection of testimony. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the accused to prove tutoring, not on the prosecution to disprove it.
"The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness."
The Court noted that PW3, aged approximately 8 - 10 years, provided a coherent, chronological account of the incident, including the arrival of the appellant from the cotton field, the stabbing of her mother, her own injury, and her subsequent flight to seek help. Her testimony was consistent with that of PW2, the injured mother, and was corroborated by PW5 Anil, who found Savita lying injured with blood and the broken knife.
The Court further held that the medical evidence of four to five stab wounds to the abdomen and thigh, as testified by PW6 Dr. Ingale and PW10 Dr. Ghorpade, established that the injuries were life-threatening and that timely medical intervention was critical to survival. This satisfied the requirement of intent to cause death under Section 307 IPC.
The Court rejected the argument that the absence of independent eyewitnesses invalidated the case, observing that the testimony of the injured mother and child, both of whom were directly involved, constituted direct evidence. The Court also noted that the appellant’s prior threats, his acquaintance with the victims, and the recovery of the weapon further strengthened the prosecution’s case.
The Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence, and that no perversity or error of law was demonstrated.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 324 IPC was upheld. The sentence imposed by the trial court remains in force. The Court directed that the fees of the advocate appointed to represent Respondent No.2 be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per applicable rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Independent Corroboration
- Practitioners must now argue that corroboration is a prudential safeguard, not a legal mandate under Section 118 of the Evidence Act
- A child’s testimony, if consistent, detailed, and unshaken in cross-examination, may be sufficient for conviction even in absence of independent witnesses
- The burden to prove tutoring lies on the accused; mere suspicion is insufficient
Intent to Kill Under Section 307 IPC Is Inferable from Nature and Location of Injuries
- Multiple stab wounds to vital areas (abdomen, thigh) coupled with medical testimony on life-threatening risk establish intent under Section 307
- Prior threats and conduct before the incident are admissible to prove mens rea
- Courts will not require proof of premeditation; intent may be inferred from the act itself
Cross-Examination Cannot Be Used to Manufacture Doubt Where Testimony Is Consistent
- Minor inconsistencies in time, clothing, or sequence do not invalidate testimony if core facts remain unchanged
- Courts must distinguish between genuine memory lapses and fabricated narratives
- The demeanor of the child witness during testimony remains a critical factor in credibility assessment
