SHEIKH UMAR SAHEB ALIAS UMRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I would like to add a few words regarding the value to be attached to the evidence of eye-witnesses. In support of the proposition that no weight should be attached to the testimony of child-witnesses Mr. Basi Reddy, counsel for the appellant cited to us, two rulings one of Lahore High Court in Abbas v. Emperor AIR 1933 Lah 667 (A) and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Mohamad Sugal v. King 1946 Mad. W. N. 101 : (AIR 1946 PO 3) (B ). In the first of the two cases, it was observed by the learned Judges that, in considering the evidence of child-witnesses, the observations (which will be referred to immediately) should not be lost sight of although each would depend upon its particular facts and circumstances. The passage which was the basis of these observations of the learned Judges is extracted from the Outlines of Criminal Law page 336 by Dr. Kenny, Downing Professor of the Laws of England, Cambridge University. Children are a most untrustworthy class of witnesses, for, when of a tender age, as our common experience teaches us, they often mistake dreams for reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others, and are greatly influenced by fear of punishment by hope of reward, and by desire of notoriety.

(2.) THE learned Judges do not say that it is an inflexible rule that in every case of a child witness, the evidence should be disregarded. It is specifically stated by them that it depends upon the facts of each case, and the observations of the learned author should not be lost sight of.

(3.) IN 1946 Mad WN 101; (AIR 1946 PC 3) (B), Lord Goddard who delivered the opinion of their Lordships of the Privy Council merely stated that while in India no corroboration is needed for the evidence of a child witness it is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn but this is a rule of prudence and not of law. It is thus clean that it is more a rule of caution and prudence rather than of principle. All that is required in considering the evidence of a child witness is scanning it carefully and if after doing so it is found that there are no flaws or infirmities in the evidence of a child witness there is no impediment in the way of accepting the evidence of a child. We do not find reason in rejecting that evidence merely because it is that of a child. Normally, a court should look for corroboration in such cases, but it is more, as already pointed out, by way of caution and prudence and not as a rule of law. Children are pliable and their evidence could easily be shaped and moulded. It is for this reason that a court should see If there are any signs or indications ,of tutoring. If after carefully scrutinising the evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of such a child witness. In this case the testimony of the four boys rings true. It is not open to doubt on any ground and free from any suspicion,