Child Witness Competency
✅ What is a Child Witness?
A child witness is any person under the age of 18 who provides testimony in a legal proceeding. Courts often rely on the testimony of child witnesses, especially in cases related to:
Sexual offences (e.g., POCSO Act cases)
Domestic violence
Family disputes
Custodial violence
Murder or other serious offences witnessed by a child
✅ Legal Basis for Child Witness Competency
📜 Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers because of tender years, old age, disease, or any similar cause.”
⚖️ Key Points from Section 118:
Age is not a bar to testimony.
What matters is mental maturity and understanding.
The judge must evaluate competency before allowing the child to testify.
The test is not age, but ability to understand and respond logically.
✅ Judicial Tests for Child Witness Competency
Before recording a child's statement, courts often conduct a “voir dire” — a preliminary assessment by the judge to ensure:
The child understands the duty to speak the truth
The child is capable of comprehending questions
The child can provide coherent and rational responses
⚠️ Challenges with Child Witnesses:
Easily influenced or coached
Memory lapses or imaginative narratives
Fear of authority figures
Possibility of secondary trauma when recounting events
Despite these, courts have held that a child’s testimony can be the sole basis of conviction if found credible.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Child Witness Competency
1. Ratan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997, SC)
Facts:
A 10-year-old child witnessed the murder of his father and testified in court.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a child of tender age is not disqualified from giving evidence if the court is satisfied that the child is intelligent and understands the duty of speaking the truth.
Principle:
Testimony of a child witness is admissible if the child is mentally mature and the court is convinced of his/her understanding.
2. Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1998, SC)
Facts:
A child witness was the sole eyewitness to a murder.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that child witnesses are not unreliable merely because of their age. If the testimony is found to be natural and trustworthy, it can form the sole basis for conviction.
Principle:
A conviction can be based solely on a competent child witness, provided there's no reason to doubt the veracity.
3. Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997, SC)
Facts:
Child aged around 7 years was a witness in a sexual offence case.
Held:
The Court held that the child’s evidence should be accepted if it is credible and truthful, even without corroboration.
Principle:
Corroboration is not mandatory if the child's statement is found to be reliable after careful scrutiny.
4. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2006, SC)
Facts:
Testimony of a 9-year-old child was the main evidence in a double murder case.
Held:
The Court laid down that just because a witness is a child doesn’t mean their evidence should be discarded, but the court must evaluate the possibility of tutoring and assess credibility carefully.
Principle:
Child witnesses must be assessed for impartiality and lack of coaching.
5. Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001, SC)
Facts:
The child was a rape survivor, and her statement formed the main basis of conviction.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a child’s testimony, especially in cases of sexual assault, should be handled with care but not disbelieved outright. If it appears natural and consistent, it can form the basis of conviction.
Principle:
Testimony of child victims must be respected and trusted when consistent and credible.
6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh (2011, SC)
Facts:
A 6-year-old girl, victim of a sexual offence, gave her statement during trial.
Held:
The Court upheld the conviction, stating that age is no bar to giving evidence and the court's role is to test the understanding and consistency of the child witness.
Principle:
Young age should not lead to dismissal of testimony if the child is competent and truthful.
7. State of U.P. v. Krishna Master & Ors. (2010, SC)
Facts:
10-year-old sole eyewitness to a family murder.
Held:
Supreme Court validated the testimony and said children may sometimes be more observant and truthful than adults. The child’s clarity of observation was accepted as credible.
Principle:
Children may be more reliable in certain cases, especially when they have no motive to lie.
✅ Summary Table of Case Law Principles
| Case Name | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|
| Ratan Singh v. HP (1997) | Child testimony valid if mentally competent |
| Panchhi v. U.P. (1998) | Sole testimony of child can lead to conviction |
| Dattu Ramrao (1997) | No need for corroboration if child is reliable |
| Vishnu v. Maharashtra (2006) | Caution to check for tutoring or coaching |
| Suryanarayana v. Karnataka (2001) | Child victim's testimony must be treated seriously |
| Ramesh v. MP (2011) | Age is not a bar if the child understands the situation |
| Krishna Master v. U.P. (2010) | Children can be more accurate witnesses |
📝 Final Conclusion
Child witnesses are fully competent to testify under Indian law, as per Section 118 of the Evidence Act.
Age is not the determining factor — rather, the child’s ability to understand and answer truthfully is crucial.
Courts have consistently held that child testimony can be the sole basis for conviction if found credible.
However, the possibility of coaching, influence, or trauma must be assessed cautiously by the judge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments