The Supreme Court has held that the testimony of a child witness cannot be dismissed outright, as the Evidence Act does not prescribe a minimum age for a person to be eligible to testify.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ruled that a child of tender age may testify if they possess the intellectual ability to understand questions and provide rational answers.
“The Evidence Act does not specify a minimum age for a witness. A child witness is a competent witness, and their evidence cannot be rejected outright,” the Court observed.
The Court clarified that if a child witness is deemed competent, understands the questions posed, and provides coherent and rational answers, their testimony is admissible as evidence.
“The testimony of a child witness is treated on the same footing as that of any other witness, provided the child is found competent to testify,” the Court added.
No Mandatory Corroboration Required
The Supreme Court also emphasized that there is no legal requirement that a child witness’s testimony must be corroborated before it can be considered. However, it cautioned that child witnesses can be vulnerable to tutoring and influence.
Guidelines for Recording Child Witness Testimony
Recognizing the risks of coaching or undue influence, the Court laid down a structured approach for trial courts to follow when recording the testimony of child witnesses:
1. No minimum age requirement for a child to testify.
2. The testimony of a competent child witness who understands the questions and provides coherent answers is admissible.
3. Preliminary examination by the trial court is mandatory before recording testimony to determine if the child understands the sanctity of giving evidence.
4. The trial court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth.
5. The demeanor of the child and their ability to respond coherently must be noted by the court.
6. No requirement for corroboration—a child witness’s testimony can form the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence.
7. Since child witnesses can be influenced easily, courts must be vigilant against potential tutoring.
Case Background: Witnessing a Brutal Crime
The Court was adjudicating a case where a seven-year-old girl witnessed her mother’s murder by her father, who then cremated the body in secrecy.
While the trial court convicted the accused, the Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted him, reasoning that the child’s testimony was unreliable and possibly tutored.
The Supreme Court, however, overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that a competent child witness’s testimony cannot be discarded merely due to age or potential tutoring.
“Before recording a child witness’s testimony, the trial court must establish and record its opinion that the child understands the duty to tell the truth,” the judgment stated.
Handling Allegations of Tutoring
The Court also provided guidance on how to evaluate claims of tutoring in child witness testimonies:
• If a child’s testimony includes contradictions or additions, the trial court must first confront the witness with inconsistencies and provide an opportunity for clarification.
• If a child witness’s entire testimony appears doctored, it may be discarded only if there is clear evidence of tutoring or a reasonable likelihood of influence.
• Minor inconsistencies in the testimony should not automatically discredit a child witness if their core account remains credible.
The Court further clarified that even if a portion of a child’s statement is found to be tutored, the untutored parts may still be relied upon—similar to how courts treat the testimony of a hostile witness.
Conviction Upheld
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the accused father failed to provide any explanation for his wife’s death, despite the incident occurring inside his own house.
“The accused’s failure to inform family members about his wife’s death and his clandestine cremation of her body, coupled with his decision to flee while leaving his seven-year-old daughter alone, are incriminating circumstances pointing directly at him,” the Court noted.
Accordingly, the High Court’s acquittal was set aside, and the conviction of the accused was upheld.
