Section 134 Of Evidence Act Prioritizes Quality Over Quantity; Conviction Can Rest On Single Wholly Credible Witness: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction passed in a case registered under Sections 376, 323 IPC & 3, 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

Dealing with the aspect of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, when the conviction rests predominantly on the sole testimony of a child witness, the  Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay explained, “In evaluating this matter, two core principles of the Indian Evidence Act must be applied. First, under Section 134, the law prioritizes the quality of evidence over its quantity, establishing that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any fact, meaning a conviction can legally rest on a single, wholly credible witness. Second, under Section 118, a child is recognized as a competent witness provided, they possess the capacity to understand the questions put to them and give rational answers, remaining unhindered by their tender years. It is a well-settled principle of law that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a child witness, such evidence must be evaluated with great circumspection.”

Advocate Ajay Singh Sengar represented the Appellant while Govt. Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2017, when the daughter of the informant had gone to buy some items from a shop, when the accused-appellant pressed the throat of the victim, due to which she fell down and became unconscious. On the basis of the written report, an FIR was registered under Section 323, 354-B of IPC and Sections 7,8 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, an offence under Section 376 IPC was added to the matter. The case against accused Kuntesh being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 376 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the POCSO Act.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found glaring infirmities that surfaced, which severely vitiated the prosecution's narrative. The Bench noted that the victim accompanied her father to the police station when this initial report was lodged but this report was conspicuously silent on any sexual assault.

The Bench also noticed that the father, during his deposition before the Trial Court, completely confined his testimony to his original written complaint and did not state anything regarding the commission of rape till the very end. He stated before the Trial Court that he had only narrated that specific incident to the police which was told to him by his daughter (the victim) herself. “This material omission at the earliest opportunity casts a heavy shadow of doubt on the genesis of the prosecution's case”, it added.

The Bench also found inconsistencies in the statements of the 8-year-old victim. As per the Bench, the case of the prosecution did not find firm corroboration from medical evidence, as the medical findings on record failed to conclusively establish or medically corroborate the allegations of sexual assault as narrated by the victim. “No internal and external injuries, intact hymen and complete absence of seminal fluids when considered with other circumstances of the case cast a shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution”, it noted.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench acquitted the appellant of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.

Cause Title: Kuntesh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:124831-DB)

Appearance

Appellants: Advocate Ajay Singh Sengar, Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Vijay Singh Sengar

Respondent: Govt. Advocate

Click here to read/download Order