The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the convictions of Chaneshwari Sahu and Pramod Kumar Sahu for the murder of Ganesh Ram Sahu, reaffirming that a child’s testimony may be accepted if it is found reliable and supported by other evidence on record. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed the criminal appeals filed by both convicts, finding no error in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.
Case Background
The case stemmed from the gruesome murder of Ganesh Ram Sahu, whose body was discovered in the Son river on March 30, 2023. The prosecution alleged that his wife, Chaneshwari, and co-accused Pramod Kumar Sahu, were in an illicit relationship and murdered Ganesh Ram after he caught them together. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, convicted both under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, with Chaneshwari also found guilty under Section 203 IPC for giving false information.
The High Court considered two criminal appeals — CRA No. 1374 of 2024 filed by Chaneshwari Sahu and CRA No. 1363 of 2024 filed by Pramod Kumar Sahu — and upheld the sentences awarded, including life imprisonment for murder.
Key Witness: The Child Daughter
A central figure in the prosecution’s case was the eight-year-old daughter of the deceased and accused Chaneshwari — Madhukumari Sahu (PW-5). She testified in court that she had seen her mother and Pramod beating her father on the night of the incident. She specifically described how:
“Pramod had climbed on her father’s chest and her mother was pulling her father’s neck with the help of scarf, then, she got scared and thought that they would kill her too, then she went to sleep.”
Although she had not disclosed this incident in her earlier police statement (Ex.D/4), the High Court noted that she gave a satisfactory explanation during her testimony. As per the judgment:
“She has stated that her mother had threatened to beat her very badly if she told about the incident… she was scared and she thought that they will beat her also, then she went to sleep.”
Corroboration by Medical and Physical Evidence
The postmortem report by Dr. Surendra Kumar Tandon (PW-11) supported the child’s testimony. He confirmed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and that the death was homicidal. Although no external strangulation marks were found due to the decomposition of the body, internal injuries and swelling in the throat and windpipe were consistent with strangulation.
The police also recovered a brown woollen Gamchha (scarf) from the accused, which the prosecution linked to the murder weapon based on the child’s account and statements by other witnesses.
Observations on Child Witness Testimony
The Court examined the legal standards for evaluating the testimony of a child witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing various precedents, including Panchhi v. State of U.P. and State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Galapuji. The Bench reiterated that:
“The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one… and there is no likelihood of being tutored.”
The Court concluded that Madhukumari’s testimony was not inherently unreliable and was sufficiently corroborated by other material on record. It noted that her evidence could not be discarded simply because of her age or because her initial police statement omitted certain facts.
Court’s Final Conclusion
The High Court held:
“Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of both the cases, we are of the opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting appellant-Pramod Kumar Sahu… as well as further justified in convicting the appellant-Chaneshwari Sahu…”
It concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed both appeals.
