Introduction

The case of Hari Om Alias Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021 INSC 1) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India serves as a pivotal examination of the reliability and admissibility of child witness testimony in criminal proceedings. The appellant, Hari Om Alias Hero, along with his co-accused, faced multiple charges including murder, under Sections 396 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The core issues revolved around the credibility of a five-year-old child’s testimony and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence leading to the conviction of the accused.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India reviewed the conviction and sentencing of six accused individuals, notably Hari Om, Sanjay Alias Sonu, and Saurabh Alias Sanju. The trial court had originally sentenced Hari Om to death, while others received life imprisonment or were acquitted based on the strength of the evidence presented. Upon appeal, the High Court upheld the death sentence for Hari Om but acquitted three of the accused due to insufficient evidence.

The Supreme Court, after thorough deliberation, acquitted Hari Om and his co-accused, citing the unreliability of the child witness's testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence necessary to uphold the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references seminal cases that shape the evidentiary threshold for child witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence. Key precedents include:

• Suryanarayana v. State Of Karnataka (2001) 9 SCC 129: Emphasizing that child witness testimonies require cautious scrutiny and should not be outrightly dismissed but also not be solely relied upon without corroboration.
• Panchhi v. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177: Highlighting the susceptibility of child witnesses to external influences and the need for their testimonies to be corroborated.
• Radhey Shyam v. State Of Rajasthan (2014) 5 SCC 389: Reinforcing that inconsistencies in a child witness's testimony undermine its reliability.
• Hukam Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99: Demonstrating that circumstantial evidence alone, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient for conviction.
• Musheer Khan v. State of M.P. (2010) 2 SCC 748: Stating that fingerprint evidence should only corroborate other substantive evidence and not stand alone as the basis for conviction.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the credibility of the child witness, Ujjwal, whose testimony was central to the prosecution's case. The Court observed several inconsistencies and deficiencies in Ujjwal's statements, both during his examination-in-chief and cross-examinations:

• Contradictions between Ujjwal's statements during investigation and his court testimony.
• Absence of medical evidence confirming his allegations of being throttled.
• Discrepancies in the timeline, particularly relating to the timing of a phone call reported by Ujjwal.
• Lack of corroborative identification parades or independent verification of the accused's involvement besides Ujjwal's assertions.

Furthermore, the fingerprint evidence presented against Sanjay Alias Sonu and Saurabh Alias Sanju was deemed insufficient due to procedural lapses in fingerprint collection and analysis, aligning with the stringent standards outlined in Prakash v. State Of Karnataka (2014).

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts future criminal proceedings involving child witnesses and circumstantial evidence:

• Reinforcement of Evidentiary Standards: It underscores the necessity for corroborative evidence when dealing with child witness testimonies, ensuring that convictions are not based solely on such testimonies without substantiation.
• Strict Scrutiny of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasizes that circumstantial evidence must unequivocally point to the accused's guilt without reasonable alternative explanations.
• Procedural Rigor in Forensic Evidence: Highlights the importance of following established protocols in forensic evidence collection and analysis to maintain its integrity and reliability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Child Witness: A witness who is a minor, typically below the age of legal majority, whose testimony holds particular sensitivity due to their age and potential vulnerability.

Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it, requiring the court to infer the conclusion.

Fingerprints as Forensic Evidence: Unique patterns on fingertips used to identify individuals; however, their reliability depends on proper collection and analysis procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Hari Om Alias Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to uphold the highest standards of evidence admissibility and reliability. By meticulously dissecting the inconsistencies in the child witness's testimony and scrutinizing the procedural integrity of forensic evidence, the Court reinforced the principle that convictions must be grounded in unequivocal and corroborated evidence. This judgment not only safeguards the rights of the accused against baseless convictions but also ensures that the justice system remains robust, fair, and just, particularly when vulnerable witnesses are involved.