However, while considering the appeal filed by the convicts, the High Court found that the child’s testimony was full of irreconcilable contradictions and exhibited clear hallmarks of tutoring. Thus, the Court ruled that it was wholly unsafe to form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court noted that the child witness stated that after the incident, he had asked for help from a person who was grazing goats and that person directed him to a particular lane where he met pradhan Jitendra Bhushan.
Thereafter, as per the testimony, the pradhan had contacted the police, who then came to his house and took the child to the police station . The child had also stated that he informed his uncle Manish about the incident who in turn informed the police.
However, the Court found that Manish’s statement revealed that the information after the murders was given to the police by pradhan, and that he had also received the information from there and not from the child.
The Court also took note of the delay in recording the child’s statement, observing that it creates significant doubt about his presence at the scene of crime on the date and time in question.
“The internal contents of the child’s deposition unequivocally demonstrate that the child was an easy prey to tutoring and was swayed by the influence of adult relatives i.e. his bua and fufa. The narrative provided by the child appears artificially structured and lacks the natural spontaneity expected from an 8-year-old child who allegedly witnessed a tragic traumatic incident involving his own mother and siblings,” the Court said.