IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.136-DBA of 1997 Date of Decision: January 07, 2008 State of Punjab .......Appellant Versus Pirthi Singh .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr.SS Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. The learned Trial Court exonerated the respondent-accused of a charge of having committed the murder of Manpreet Singh, a child aged 5 years, on 24.9.1993. 2. The State is in appeal. 3. We must zero-in on the relevant facts in the first instance. Parneet Kaur, PW1 (aged 6-1/2 years), Manpreet Singh, deceased (aged 5 years) and Kamalpreet (aged 1-1/2 years) are children of Tarlochan Singh, Lambardar and a resident of village Lulon. All of them were on the rolls of a School at village Bhateri. On the fateful day, all the three-some went out to play at a place near their house. On return from the fields at about 2.00 P.M., Tarlochan Singh asked his wife to indicate the whereabouts of his Criminal Appeal No.136-DBA of 1997 -2- aforementioned children. In the meantime, Parneet Kaur and Kamalpreet (not examined at the trial) reached the house. They were not accompanied by Manpreet. On being questioned about the whereabouts of Manpreet, PW1 Parneet Kaur informed her father that he was playing near the Khola of one Karnail Singh. Tarlochan Singh and his wife looked for Manpreet Singh for quite some time but in vain. Thereupon, Tarlochan Singh went to Police Station Bassi Pathanan and lodged a formal FIR under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent – accused Pirthi Singh, with whom he had an altercation on 10.6.1993, on suspicion. He had a feeling that the respondent-accused and his son nourished a grievance on account of that altercation. In the course of investigation, Parneet Kaur informed the police that it was the accused who had caught hold of Manpreet by his arm when the latter was playing with her and Kamalpreet and had taken him along when she got busy playing with one Pammi. The dead body of Manpreet was recovered from the Khola on 25.9.1993. PW1 Parneet Kaur (child witness), PW2 Tarlochan Singh (father of the deceased child and PW1), PW3 Gurcharan Singh and Subedar Sadhu Singh PW4 were examined to prove the allegations against respondent-accused at the trial. SI Nazar Singh, PW5 and SI Atma Singh, PW7, the Investigating Officer of the case were also examined. PW6 Dr.P.D.Sharma had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 4. The learned Trial Judge recorded a finding of acquittal as he found on facts that the star witness PW1 Parneet Kaur had not only made improvements on the presentation made earlier by her before the Police but had also been proved to be a tutored witness inasmuch as she had conceded that she and her father met the District Attorney (on the day he was Criminal Appeal No.136-DBA of 1997 -3- examined at the trial) and the latter told her what exactly to say in the Court. The learned Trial Court held on the basis thereof that the “bald statement of Parneet Kaur which contains number of infirmities and improvements, is not sufficient to base the conviction of Pirthi Singh accused.” The learned Trial Court also found fault with the prosecution version by noticing that though the respondent-accused had been named in the FIR (lodged on 25.4.1993), there is no explanation to explain why the accused was not arrested till 1.8.1994. 5. The learned State counsel argues that the testimony on oath of PW1, who had been adjudged to be a competent child witness, had been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court for inappropriate reasons. The plea raised thereby is that the occurrence of small infirmities/inconsistencies in the testimony of a child witness is fairly natural and the learned Trial Court ought to have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of the child witness without any corroboration. 6. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the testimony of a child witness is on the same pedestal as that of any other witness. At the same time, rule of interpretive prudence would ordain that the testimony of a child witness ought to be acted upon with noticeable judicial restraint if it is found that the child witness had tried to effect improvements upon the earlier presentation. That rule of caution would be all the more into play when it is found that the child witness is not truthful. 7. It is in the testimony of PW1 that when Pirthi Singh accused had taken away deceased Manpreet to a Khola, she was threatened (by the respondent-accused) with death by strangulation if she narrated the occurrence to anyone. On her own showing, she got frightened and hid Criminal Appeal No.136-DBA of 1997 -4- herself in the house of the Sarpanch. It maybe noticed here that the Sarpanch of the village was examined as PW4. However, there is nothing in his testimony to own that the child witness did indeed conceal herself in his house. A child frightened by the above indicated events would obviously attract the attention of whosoever sees her. In the present case, PW1 Parneet Kaur did not narrate the occurrence to her parents though she slept in her house for the night and her parents also slept in the same house. It would appear unnatural that Parneet Kaur would not have shared the knowledge of the occurrence with her parents, particularly when the matter involved her real brother. Even if she had been initially frightened by the threat held out by accused – Pirthi Singh, she could be expected to re-gain her normal confidence sometime thereafter and to share information with her parents. In view, thus, of the fact that the learned Trial Court recorded acceptable reasons for discarding the testimony of the child witness and also in view of the fact that we are not persuaded to find any fault with the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court , the present can not be said to be a case requiring interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 07, 2008 SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No