Hajabhai Rajeshibhai Odedara vs. The State of Gujarat
Background
The accused and a woman named Jagrutiben, who were in a relationship, allegedly conspired to kill Jagrutiben's family members so they could marry. Jagrutiben's mother and brother were strangled to death, and another brother, Rajdeep (a child, examined as the key eyewitness, PW66), survived a strangulation attempt. Rajdeep gave several statements over about three weeks, and only in his last statement did he name the accused. The trial court convicted the accused based mainly on Rajdeep's testimony plus recovery of a pesticide bottle he had purchased, and the Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Rajdeep's inconsistent, delayed identification made his testimony unreliable and that most other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Rajdeep's identification of the accused emerged only in his final statement and that there were inconsistencies across his various statements, but held that this was explainable by his young age, the trauma of witnessing his family's murder and surviving an attempt on his own life, and the fact that the co-accused was present during his earlier statements (limiting his ability to speak freely). The Court held that a conviction cannot rest on the sole child witness's testimony alone, but found sufficient independent corroboration in proven evidence that the accused had purchased the pesticide bottle recovered from the crime scene, which the accused failed to explain. On this combined basis, the Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Lesson Learnt
A sole eyewitness's account, especially a child survivor's, need not be rejected merely because of delay or inconsistency in earlier statements if there is a reasonable explanation (such as trauma or the presence of the accused's associate); but courts will still look for independent corroborating evidence connecting the accused to the crime before relying on such testimony to convict.