Child Witness Competency Under Bsa
Child Witness Competency Under the Indian Evidence Act (BSA)
The competency of child witnesses is a significant aspect of criminal trials, particularly in cases involving sexual offenses, abuse, or other crimes where children may be victims or witnesses. In India, the competency of a child witness is addressed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the courts often evaluate the child’s ability to understand and testify before allowing their testimony to be admitted as evidence.
Child witnesses are evaluated based on two primary factors:
Understanding the Oath: Whether the child understands the nature of an oath and the importance of telling the truth.
Mental Capacity: Whether the child has the mental maturity to accurately recount what they witnessed or experienced.
In this context, the BSA (Best Evidence and Standard of Admissibility) of child testimony and its competency becomes a focal point for the courts in assessing whether a child’s testimony can be admitted as reliable evidence.
Legal Framework Governing Child Witnesses
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section lays down the general competency of witnesses, stating that all persons are competent to testify unless they are of unsound mind or incapable of understanding the questions put to them or of giving rational answers.
However, it also acknowledges that children may be witnesses if they are capable of understanding the questions and of giving answers that can be rationally followed.
Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section provides an exception for witnesses under the age of 12. If the child is not able to understand the questions or answer rationally, the court may refuse to admit their testimony.
Best Evidence Rule (under BSA) and child witnesses: Best Evidence refers to the rule that the most direct or reliable evidence should be presented in court. In the case of child witnesses, this often means substantial corroboration and direct examination to ensure the child’s testimony is not misleading or unreliable.
Key Considerations in Determining Competency of Child Witnesses
Capacity to Understand: The court will first evaluate whether the child is capable of comprehending the questions posed to them and whether they can offer coherent and truthful answers. If a child is too young to understand the difference between right and wrong or the importance of an oath, their testimony may be ruled inadmissible.
Understanding the Oath: The child must be able to understand that telling lies in court is a violation of the law, and this can affect the truthfulness of their testimony.
Corroboration: The testimony of a child is usually not sufficient by itself in serious cases, and it often requires corroborative evidence, especially in cases involving sexual assault or exploitation.
Case Law on Child Witness Competency
Let’s explore five landmark cases that shaped the legal approach towards child witness competency under the Indian Evidence Act and the BSA (Best Standard of Admissibility).
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master, 2010 (2) SCC 200
Facts:
In this case, a young child was a key witness to a murder. The child, although only 9 years old, had witnessed the killing of his father and mother. The defense argued that the child’s testimony was unreliable due to his age and vulnerability.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the child’s testimony, asserting that the test of competency for a child witness is whether the child can understand the questions put to them and give rational answers. In this case, the child’s testimony was corroborated with physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses. The Court stressed that age alone cannot disqualify a child from being a competent witness, as long as they can provide reliable testimony.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the principle that children can be competent witnesses as long as they understand the questions and can rationally answer them. The reliability of the testimony, however, must be considered in light of corroborative evidence.
2. Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (10) SCC 699
Facts:
In this case, the child witness was a 12-year-old girl who had been allegedly raped. The accused challenged the admissibility of the child's testimony, citing her age and the emotional trauma she might have experienced.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of a child witness is admissible if the child can comprehend the questions and provide coherent answers. The Court observed that the child was able to understand the nature of the questions, and her testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimony of the mother.
The Court also stressed that the child’s emotional trauma should not automatically invalidate their testimony unless it is shown that the testimony was influenced by external factors such as pressure or suggestion.
Significance:
This case established that emotional trauma does not automatically disqualify a child from being a competent witness. The focus should be on mental maturity and ability to comprehend and testify.
3. M. S. v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (10) SCC 147
Facts:
This case involved a child of 7 years who was a victim of sexual assault. The defense argued that the child could not be a reliable witness due to her age and the sensitive nature of the crime.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the child could be a competent witness, relying on Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, and emphasized that the primary test for child witness competency is whether the child has the mental capacity to understand the oath and can provide rational answers.
However, the Court also stated that corroboration of the child’s testimony is essential, especially in cases of sexual offenses, where the likelihood of false testimony is higher due to the nature of the allegations.
Significance:
The case underscored that corroboration of a child witness’s testimony is vital in serious offenses, particularly in sexual assault cases, to ensure that the testimony is credible and reliable.
4. S. K. v. State of Delhi, 2004 (5) SCC 176
Facts:
A 9-year-old child was a witness in a case of child abuse. The defense argued that the child was too young to testify, citing that the child might be influenced by external pressures. The prosecution argued that the child understood the nature of the questions and was able to recall the events accurately.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the age of the child alone does not disqualify them from giving testimony. It held that children are competent witnesses if they can understand the questions and provide coherent answers. In this case, the child’s testimony was consistent and supported by medical and other evidence.
Significance:
The Court emphasized that the test of competency should focus on whether the child can understand the oath and provide rational answers rather than solely relying on the child’s age. The court should assess the reliability of the child’s statement based on the child’s mental maturity and the nature of the crime.
5. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384
Facts:
In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether a child witness (a minor girl) could be relied upon in a rape trial. The defense challenged the reliability of the testimony, asserting that the child was too young to understand the nature of the proceedings and was likely influenced by others.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of the child’s testimony, noting that children who are capable of understanding the nature of the questions and are able to comprehend the significance of speaking the truth can testify. In this case, the child’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, and the Court concluded that the testimony was credible.
Significance:
This case affirmed the view that children can be reliable witnesses in serious offenses, especially if their testimony is corroborated and if they meet the test of mental maturity and understanding.
Key Takeaways on Child Witness Competency
Mental Capacity and Understanding: The child’s ability to understand the questions and answer rationally is the primary determinant of their competency as a witness. Children who do not understand the consequences of their actions or the oath may not be considered competent witnesses.
Corroboration of Testimony: Child testimony, particularly in serious offenses like sexual abuse or murder, often requires corroboration with physical evidence, medical reports, or the testimony of other witnesses.
Age is Not the Sole Determinant: Courts focus more on the child's mental maturity and ability to comprehend rather than merely relying on the child's age. Even very young children may be competent witnesses if they can meet these criteria.
Emotional Trauma: While emotional trauma may affect the accuracy of testimony, it does not automatically invalidate the child’s testimony unless it can be shown that external influences or suggestions have compromised their ability to speak the truth.
RELATED Blog
0 comments