The Supreme Court, in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025 INSC 261), laid down key judicial principles for assessing the testimony of child witnesses in criminal trials.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025 INSC 261), examined the principles governing the testimony of child witnesses in criminal trials. The case arose from a Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging a High Court judgment that had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took the opportunity to lay down clear judicial guidelines on assessing the credibility and admissibility of child witness testimony. Given the susceptibility of children to influence, tutoring, and confusion, the Court reiterated the need for a cautious approach while recording and evaluating their statements.
This judgment reaffirms the legal principles surrounding child witnesses and provides important guidance on how courts should assess their evidence to ensure fairness and justice in criminal proceedings.
Case Background
In a shocking case of alleged domestic violence and murder, a man convicted for the brutal killing of his wife was later acquitted by the High Court, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.
The deceased woman was married to the respondent-accused, and the couple had two sons and a daughter. In 2003, the victim’s relatives, including the complainant and his father, reportedly heard cries and screams from her home around midnight. However, by morning, the screams had stopped, and villagers informed them that the woman had died during the night and had already been cremated.
Investigation & Charges
A report under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was filed, raising suspicions of an unnatural death. The complainant and his father alleged that they witnessed the accused and his family cremating the victim’s body in a nearby field.
Further inquiries revealed a chilling sequence of events. The accused allegedly threw his wife from the first-floor porch, then choked her by pressing his leg on her neck, causing her death. His sister allegedly helped him cremate the body overnight to destroy evidence.
Crucial Testimony: Child Witness Speaks Out
A key witness in the case was the minor daughter of the deceased and the accused, whose police statement detailed the horrifying events. She recounted that:
- Her father grabbed her mother by the neck, hit her with a stick, and pressed down on her neck with his foot.
- Her mother screamed for help, but when she tried to intervene, her father slapped her while her aunt pulled her away.
- She later saw her mother lifeless and being taken away to the barn for cremation.
Court Rulings: Conviction & Acquittal
The Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting him under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 read with 34 of the IPC. However, dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused appealed to the High Court, which overturned the conviction and acquitted him.
Supreme Court to Decide: Justice for the Victim?
Following the High Court’s acquittal, the State has now approached the Supreme Court, seeking justice for the deceased woman. The case raises serious questions about domestic violence, destruction of evidence, and the reliability of witness testimony, especially from a child witness.
The Court ruled that a child witness’s testimony does not require corroboration to be considered valid evidence.
However, it also cautioned that child witnesses can be easily influenced or tutored, making them unreliable in some cases.
To address this concern, the Court established a detailed procedure for trial courts to follow when recording the testimony of child witnesses. This includes assessing their ability to testify and ensuring that their statements are free from external influence.
THE JUDGEMENT IN A NUTSHELL
- There is no minimum age requirement for a witness to testify.
- A child witness’s testimony is admissible if they can understand the questions and provide coherent answers.
- Before recording the testimony, the trial court must conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether the child witness understands the significance of giving evidence.
- The trial court must explicitly note its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness comprehends the duty of speaking the truth.
- The demeanor of the child and their ability to respond to questions must be recorded by the trial court.
- There is no mandatory requirement for a child witness’s testimony to be corroborated before being considered as evidence.
- Child witnesses are regarded as vulnerable, as they can be easily influenced or tutored; therefore, courts must carefully assess the possibility of external influence.
Supreme Court’s Observations on the Appreciation of Evidence
In light of the case’s facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court acknowledged the complexity of evaluating witness testimony, stating,
“The appreciation of testimony of a witness is a hard task. There is no fixed or straightjacket formula for evaluating ocular evidence.”
The Court then laid down key judicial principles for assessing witness testimony in criminal cases:
- Truthfulness of Testimony – The overall impression of the witness’s statement should indicate credibility rather than focusing on isolated inconsistencies.
- Weight of Trial Court’s Observations – The appellate court should respect the trial court’s assessment of a witness unless strong reasons justify overturning it.
- Discrepancies in Eyewitness Accounts – Minor inconsistencies in a witness’s statement, especially when examined extensively, should not automatically discredit their testimony.
- Hyper-Technical Approach – Small errors, trivial contradictions, or procedural lapses by the investigating officer should not lead to outright rejection of evidence.
- Narration Variations – Differences in accounts given by the same witness at different times should be considered realistically, as absolute precision is unrealistic.
- Limitations of Human Memory – Witnesses cannot be expected to have photographic memories or recall events as if replaying a videotape.
- Effects of Surprise Events – Witnesses are often caught off guard by sudden incidents, making perfect recall of details unlikely.
- Differences in Observational Abilities – People perceive and remember events differently; what one person notices, another might overlook.
- Recall of Conversations – Expecting verbatim recollection of conversations is unrealistic; witnesses usually remember only the core meaning.
- Estimations of Time and Duration – Witnesses often estimate times based on guesswork, making exact accuracy difficult.
- Sequence of Events – A witness may struggle to recall the precise order of rapidly occurring events.
- Courtroom Pressure – The stress of a courtroom environment and cross-examination can confuse witnesses, leading them to mix up facts or unintentionally fill in gaps.
- Consistency of Statements – An earlier statement that appears inconsistent with testimony does not necessarily amount to a contradiction.
- Related Witnesses – Testimony from witnesses with personal ties to the deceased should not be dismissed outright due to their relationship.
Principles for Evaluating Circumstantial Evidence
While no fixed formula exists for assessing circumstantial evidence, the Court reiterated that a conviction based on such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
- The circumstances indicating guilt must be clearly and firmly established.
- These circumstances must unmistakably point to the accused’s guilt and be conclusive.
- Taken together, the circumstances should form a complete and inescapable chain proving the accused’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
- The evidence must exclude all alternative explanations other than the accused’s guilt.
The Supreme Court also highlighted the need for careful application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases.
Based on these principles, the Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court’s acquittal, and reinstated the conviction of the accused.
Legal Framework: Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), a child of tender age can be a witness if the court determines that they possess the intellectual ability to comprehend questions and provide rational answers.
- The law does not specify a minimum age for a child to be deemed incompetent as a witness.
- Child witnesses play a crucial role in many cases, particularly those involving sexual offenses against minors.
- However, courts approach their testimony with caution due to concerns about tutoring, imagination blending with reality, and susceptibility to external influence.
Credibility and Admissibility of Child Testimony
- While legally competent, child witnesses often face challenges regarding their credibility.
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that child witnesses are prone to external influence, confusion between dreams and reality, and susceptibility to coercion or rewards.
- Courts must scrutinize their statements carefully before relying on them.
- However, if the testimony bears an “impress of truth”, it is legally acceptable.
- Competency and admissibility are distinct concepts—even if a child is competent to testify, their statement may be inadmissible if it includes opinions, beliefs, or hearsay.
Landmark Judgments on Child Witness Testimony
- Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that the absence of an oath does not affect the admissibility of a child’s testimony but may impact its credibility. Judges must record their reasons for finding a child competent to testify.
- R v. Norbury (1977): The Privy Council admitted the testimony of a six-year-old rape victim, stating that if the child understands the questions and provides rational answers, corroboration is not necessary.
- Mangoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995) : The Supreme Court held that the possibility of tutoring alone is insufficient to reject a child’s testimony. Courts must examine the substance of the evidence to determine whether the child was indeed tutored.
- Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (2008) : The Supreme Court reiterated that child witnesses are susceptible to influence, but their testimony can be relied upon if it carries an “impress of truth” after thorough judicial scrutiny.
- Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana (2017): The Supreme Court upheld a conviction based solely on the testimony of a 12-year-old who witnessed his father’s murder. The Court found his testimony to be reliable, admissible, and free from external influence.
Both circumstantial evidence and child witness testimony play crucial roles in the administration of justice, but courts must evaluate them with strict judicial scrutiny to prevent wrongful convictions or unjustified acquittals.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the law requires that all circumstances must be firmly established, unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and exclude any other possible explanation. The Supreme Court has consistently reinforced these principles to ensure that convictions are based on compelling and conclusive evidence.
Similarly, child witnesses, while legally competent to testify under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, are often subjected to greater scrutiny due to their vulnerability to tutoring, influence, and confusion. The courts have recognized that if a child’s testimony carries an “impress of truth”, it can form the sole basis of conviction. Landmark judgments have reaffirmed that mere doubts about tutoring should not lead to outright rejection of a child’s evidence unless clear inconsistencies are found.
Thus, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in balancing fair trial rights with the need to protect vulnerable witnesses and uphold justice. The careful evaluation of circumstantial evidence and child testimony ensures that convictions are based on reliable, credible, and legally sound evidence, thereby strengthening public confidence in the legal system.
- CASE NAME: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 261
- Appearance:
- For the Respondent: AOR Anil Shrivastav, assisted by Advocates Lakhan Singh Chauhan, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, Akhileshwar Jha, Varun Verma, and Sandeep Singh D.
- For the Appellant: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, along with Advocates Sarthak Raizada, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, and Akanksha Tomar.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON CHILD WITNESS
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES