The Supreme Court on Monday reinforced the credibility of child witnesses in legal proceedings, asserting that their evidence should not be dismissed outrightly. The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that under the Evidence Act, there is no minimum age for a witness, and the testimony of a child, deemed competent, is admissible.
This decision came during the appeal of a murder case where a woman was killed by her husband, with the key witness being their daughter. The court highlighted that such domestic crimes often occur in secrecy, making external evidence hard to procure, thus elevating the importance of the testimony given by household members, including children.
The court’s ruling overturned a previous acquittal by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had freed the accused, questioning the reliability of the child’s testimony due to a delay in recording her statement and describing her evidence as “shaky.” The Supreme Court criticized this view, stressing that the child witness had been found competent, and her testimony was on equal footing with that of any other witness.
Justice Pardiwala outlined that while evaluating a child’s testimony, the court must ensure that the evidence is reliable, free from tutoring, and that the child comprehends the significance of their testimony. The trial court is required to perform a preliminary examination to determine the child’s understanding of the obligation to speak the truth and to assess their responses for coherence and rationality.
The Supreme Court noted that the child’s testimony explained the crime without undue enhancements and held that such evidence could be the sole basis for conviction without the need for corroboration. This establishes a significant precedent that while child witnesses are vulnerable to influence, their evidence, if deemed confident and competent, should not be underestimated or discarded lightly.
