LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 20 August 2026

Must a child witness's testimony be corroborated before a conviction can be sustained, or is such corroboration only a rule of prudence?

RAVI KUMAR SINGH MALHOTRA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2026 INSC 899 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 937 OF 2014
Coram: Augustine George Masih; Sanjay Karol
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

There is no inflexible rule requiring a child witness's testimony to be corroborated before a conviction can be sustained; such corroboration is a rule of prudence which is to be ordinarily followed, since a child is an easy prey to tutoring and his evidence has to be evaluated carefully. Given the specific and serious doubts as to tutoring in this case, the trial court's insistence on independent corroboration was not an unreasonable or impermissible approach.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302, 201 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.313 — Appeal against acquittal — Double presumption of innocence — Circumstantial evidence — Child witness testimony — Criminal Procedure — Appeal against acquittal — Standard of interference — Held: In an appeal against reversal of an acquittal, the High Court must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence. It may interfere where the trial court's view was one no reasonable court could have taken on the material before it. (¶22) Evidence — Child witness testimony — Corroboration as rule of prudence — Held further: There is no inflexible rule requiring a child witness's testimony to be corroborated before conviction; such corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. Given the serious doubts as to tutoring here, the trial court's insistence on corroboration was not unreasonable. (¶24, 25) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Held further: Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis other than the accused's guilt; mere suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof. Absent cogent evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction cannot be sustained; appeal allowed, appellant acquitted. (¶27, 38)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 24It is well settled that while there is no inflexible rule requiring the testimony of a child witness to be corroborated before a conviction can be sustained, this Court has held that such corroboration is a rule of prudence which is to be ordinarily followed. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.[^2], this Court held that the evidence of a child has to be evaluated carefully given he is an easy prey to tutoring. Paragraph 19, which deals with it is as follows:
Paragraph 25The child (PW-28) was only four and a half years of age when the incident occurred and the testimony was recorded 4 years later. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the child lived with a constable Ramkishore. The said child witness in paragraphs 30 and 61 of his statement had also categorically stated that he was tutored. He had said that the Station House Officer had made him read his statement before going to the Court and had told him that the same statement was to be given before the Magistrate. He had also stated that the appellant had tried to strangulate him with a rope and thrown acid on him. However, the said statement stands falsified by medical evidence.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.201 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAVI KUMAR SINGH MALHOTRA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
In an appeal against reversal of an acquittal, can a High Court interfere unless the trial court's view was one no reasonable court could have taken on the material before it?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections