Court holds 8-year-old child witness was unreliable and tutored, says prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted Priyanka and her co-accused Ashish @ Daini in a sensational triple child murder case from Auraiya, setting aside the trial court’s conviction and death sentence awarded to Priyanka.
A Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the entire case rested heavily on the testimony of an 8-year-old child witness, which it described as contradictory, unnatural, and bearing clear signs of tutoring.
The case concerned the deaths of three minor children — aged 4, 5, and 6 — on 27 June 2024. The prosecution alleged that Priyanka, in conspiracy with her brother-in-law Ashish @ Daini, took the children to a bridge over the Sengur river and attempted to drown them. While three children died, one child, Sonu, survived and was projected as the key eyewitness.
However, the High Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution version. It noted that the child witness claimed to have informed the Gram Pradhan immediately after the incident, but his statement was recorded only on 5 July 2024, leaving room for tutoring. The court also observed that the child’s account lacked the spontaneity expected from a witness of tender age and that his version conflicted with the informant’s testimony.
The Bench further held that the prosecution’s narrative itself appeared unnatural. It found it improbable that the accused, if intent on eliminating all the children, would spare the eldest child, who could later identify and implicate them.
The court also criticised the informant’s testimony, calling it unreliable due to shifting versions about who informed him first — the child, the Gram Pradhan, or Priyanka’s aunt. His conduct was also found unnatural, as he claimed to have reached the spot early in the morning but lodged the FIR only in the evening.
A significant factor in the acquittal was the prosecution’s failure to examine Gram Pradhan Jitendra Bhushan, who had first informed the police and whose application set the police machinery in motion. Though his statement was recorded during investigation, he was not produced as a witness at trial. The court held that this amounted to withholding of the best evidence and justified an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Referring to established Supreme Court precedents on child witnesses and adverse inference, the High Court concluded that the investigation was riddled with serious lapses, including delay in recording the child’s statement and conflicting versions regarding the preparation of the site plan.
Holding that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the charges, the court allowed both the capital appeal and jail appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the accused if not wanted in any other case.
Bottom Line:
Evidence - Child witness - Sole testimony of 8-year-old child witness suffering from contradictions and hallmarks of tutoring cannot be made sole basis of conviction - Non-examination of Gram Pradhan, who first informed police and was material witness to genesis of occurrence, warrants adverse inference against prosecution - Serious investigative lapses and unreliable testimony of informant entitle accused to benefit of doubt - Conviction and death sentence set aside and accused acquitted.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 118, Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 161 and 313.
Priyanka v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983332
