SHIVASHARANAPPA & Ors. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

#2. In the present case, the High Court has not accepted the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court pertaining to the testimonies of PWs-7 and 9 and has further based its reasoning on the bedrock that there was a property dispute between the deceased and her mother- in-law which provided motive for commission of the crime. The High Court has also expressed the view that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of a child witness. PW-9 was eleven years old at the time of the occurrence. The High Court has accepted the version of G PW-9 (daughter of deceased) and PW-7 (mother of deceased) on two counts, namely, that the daughter was threatened and both of them were in state of fear. The trial court on the contrary, had found the conduct of both the witnesses (in not informing the incident to anyone) to be H highly unnatural. The High Court has ascribed the reason SHIVASHARANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1107 that PW-7 possibly wanted to save the reputation of the A deceased-daughter and that is why she did not inform the other daughter and son-in-law. [Paras 13, 17 and 20) [1115· C-E; 1117-D-E; 1119-B-C] B

#3. The court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. The corroboration is not a must to record a conviction, but as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that C apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, applies to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable. D [Para 16) [1116-D-F] Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5SCC 341; Panchhi and Ors. vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177: 1998(1) Suppl. SCR40; State ofU.P. vs. Ashok E Dixit and Anr. (2000) 3 sec relied on. 70: 2000 (1) SCR 855 -

4.1. The behaviour of witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of F witnesses would be unrealistic but the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that even taking into account the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the G variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance. [Para 20] [1118-F-G] Gopa/ Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A