The Supreme Court ruled that if a child witness is competent, their testimony should be treated the same as any other witness.
New Delhi, Feb 24 – The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a child witness is a competent witness and their testimony cannot be rejected outright just because they are young.
The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the Indian Evidence Act does not specify any minimum age for a witness. If a child is found capable of understanding and answering questions, their evidence is legally admissible.
The bench gave some insights:
- No minimum age requirement for a witness to testify.
- A child witness’s testimony is admissible if they can understand questions and provide coherent answers.
- A preliminary examination by the trial court is necessary to assess the child’s understanding of the sanctity of giving evidence.
- The trial court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness understands the duty of truthfulness.
- The demeanor and responsiveness of the child must be documented by the trial court.
- No mandatory requirement for corroboration of a child witness’s testimony before it is considered.
- Child witnesses are deemed vulnerable as they can be easily influenced, necessitating caution against possible tutoring by courts.
In this case, which involved the murder of a woman by her husband, the court noted that there was no proof that the victim’s daughter, a child witness, had been influenced or tutored to testify in a particular way.
The Supreme Court highlighted that cases where husbands, due to strained marital relationships and suspicions regarding their wife’s character, commit murder are frequently brought before courts.
The bench stated, “Cases are frequently coming before the courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife.”
The court further noted that such crimes often happen inside the home, in secrecy, making it difficult for prosecutors to present evidence.
“Such crimes were generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence,” the bench said.
Legal Provisions for Child Witnesses
According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, before recording the testimony of a child witness, trial courts must conduct a preliminary examination. This is done to ensure that the child understands the importance of giving truthful testimony and can comprehend the questions asked.
The court reiterated, “The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence cannot be rejected outrightly.”
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh government challenged a 2010 High Court ruling. The High Court had acquitted a man accused of murdering a woman in 2003. Though the victim’s daughter, who was seven at the time, was found competent to testify, the High Court had doubted her testimony because her police statement was recorded after an 18-day delay.
The Supreme Court ruled that if a child witness is competent, their testimony should be treated the same as any other witness.
The bench stated, “The evidence of a child witness for all purposes was deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness as long as the minor was found to be competent.”
However, the court acknowledged that child witnesses can be easily influenced. It advised caution while assessing their testimony.
“The only precaution which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring.”
At the same time, the court clarified that even if there are minor inconsistencies in a child witness’s statement, their testimony should not be disregarded entirely.
“The court, however, said in no manner it meant their evidence was to be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy.”
Instead, the court recommended careful evaluation of such evidence.
“Rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection.”
The Supreme Court explained that trial courts must ensure a child witness is giving testimony voluntarily and not under influence.
The bench stated, “While appreciating testimony of a child witness, courts were required to assess whether their evidence was voluntary, and inspired confidence, or made under someone else’s influence.”
Before recording the child’s testimony, the trial court must confirm that the child understands the duty of telling the truth.
“The bench said before such an evidence was recorded, the trial court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the witness understood the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state the reason behind it.”
The preliminary questions asked to the child, along with their behavior and ability to answer rationally, should also be documented.
“It said the questions put to the child in the course of preliminary examination and the demeanour and ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the trial court.”
Child Witness Testimony Can Be Sole Basis for Conviction
The Supreme Court affirmed that a child witness’s testimony does not necessarily need additional supporting evidence.
“The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose, i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence.”
The bench clarified, “There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it could be considered.”
If a child testifies confidently like any other competent witness, their statement can be relied upon for conviction.
“A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction.”
If the child’s testimony is clear and consistent, it does not require additional evidence for validation.
“The court went on to note if the child’s evidence explained the relevant events of a crime without improvements or embellishments, then corroboration wasn’t required.”
However, whether corroboration is needed depends on the case’s specifics.
“There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.”
Distinguishing Between Tutored and Untutored Testimony
If, after careful examination, the court is convinced that the child was neither tutored nor used for manipulation by the prosecution, their testimony must be considered.
“If courts after a careful scrutiny found there was neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, they must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.”
Even if a part of the child’s statement appears to be influenced, the remaining reliable portion can be used as evidence.
“The top court said part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, could be relied upon if the tutored part could be separated from the untutored part, given the former inspired confidence.”
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and reinstated the trial court’s conviction. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The bench ruled, “The top court allowed the appeal and set aside the high court’s judgement.”
The court further ordered the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve his sentence.
“It restored the trial court’s order which convicted the man and sentenced him to life term. The bench directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the sentence.”
Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
