In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that there is no minimum age requirement for a witness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the testimony of a child witness cannot be outrightly dismissed. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012), where the Court overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s acquittal and reinstated the trial court’s conviction.
Case Background
The case pertains to the murder of Birendra Kumari, allegedly at the hands of her husband, Balveer Singh, on the night of July 15, 2003, in Singharai village, Madhya Pradesh. The prosecution argued that Singh assaulted and strangled his wife before cremating her body secretly in the middle of the night with the help of his sister. The incident came to light when Bhoora Singh alias Yashpal, a relative of the deceased, lodged a complaint after hearing screams and later discovering the hurried cremation.
During the trial, the prosecution’s key witness was Rani, the 7-year-old daughter of the deceased and the accused, who testified that she saw her father strangling her mother. The trial court convicted Balveer Singh under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction, citing doubts about the reliability of the child witness’s testimony and procedural lapses in the investigation.
Important Legal Issues Before the Court
1. Can a child witness be considered a competent witness under the Indian Evidence Act?
2. Does a delay in recording a child witness’s statement automatically make it unreliable?
3. Can circumstantial evidence, combined with a child witness’s testimony, be sufficient for conviction?
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. No Minimum Age for Witnesses Under the Evidence Act
The Supreme Court underscored that Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not specify a minimum age for a witness. As long as a child is competent to understand and respond rationally to questions, their testimony is admissible.
“A child witness is not unreliable merely due to their tender age. The courts must assess their intellectual capacity, demeanor, and truthfulness before dismissing their testimony.”
The Court referenced its past judgments, emphasizing that child witnesses can be competent if they understand the nature of the proceedings.
2. Delay in Recording Statement Does Not Always Indicate Tutoring
The High Court had rejected Rani’s testimony, citing an 18-day delay in recording her police statement. However, the Supreme Court ruled that procedural delays do not automatically make a witness’s testimony unreliable unless there is concrete evidence of tutoring or fabrication.
“Delay in recording a child’s statement cannot by itself be a ground to discard it, especially when the witness is a minor who lost a parent. The Court must look at the overall reliability of the statement rather than a mechanical evaluation of procedural gaps.”
The bench emphasized that the delay must be examined in context, considering the trauma the child endured.
3. Circumstantial Evidence and Child Testimony Can Form a Strong Basis for Conviction
The trial court had relied on circumstantial evidence, including the suspicious cremation of the deceased at midnight, the accused’s strained relationship with his wife, and the child’s testimony. The Supreme Court noted that even in cases where direct eyewitnesses are limited, a combination of circumstantial evidence and a credible child witness’s testimony can be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“Courts must not let crucial evidence slip through merely because the sole eyewitness is a child. If found credible, their testimony, supported by circumstantial evidence, can establish the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.”
Decision of the Court
Reversing the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court restored Balveer Singh’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Court upheld the life sentence imposed by the trial court, reiterating that the High Court had erred in discarding a valid testimony merely due to procedural concerns.
In a strongly worded conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to “protect the voices of child witnesses and ensure that procedural technicalities do not shield criminals from justice.”
