Child witnesses

Dear Rajan,  Child witness as far defence is concerned is dangerous witness. Becuae once tutored they stick on that version in any circumstances.             Before putting a child into witness box a Voir dire test must be conducted by the Court.Under this test the court puts certain preliminary questions before the child which have no connection with the case, in order to know the competency of the child witness. Some examples of the questions asked under this test can be that regarding their name, father’s name or their place of residence. When the court is fully satisfied after hearing the answers to these preliminary questions, as to the capability of the child to understand these questions and to give rational answers thereto. As a matter of prudence courts often show chary of putting absolute reliance on the evidence of a solitary child witness and look for corroboration of the same from the facts and circumstances in the case, the Privy Council decision in R v. Norbury, where the evidence of the child witness of 6 years, who herself was the victim of rape, was admitted. here the court observed that a child may not understand the nature of an oath but if he is otherwise competent to testify and understand the nature of the questions put before him and is able to give rational answers thereto, then the statement of such a child witness would be held to be admitted and no corroborative proof is necessary.

quite a nice information!!!

thanks kc sir

Dear Sirs,

    The competency of a witness is the condition precedent to the administration of oath or affirmation, and is a question distinct from that of his creditability when he has been sworn or has been affirmed. Under section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, every person is competent as a witness unless the Court considers that he is prevented from considering the question put to him or from giving reasonable reason because of the factor of age i.e.; tender or extreme age.

   This prevention is based on the presumption that children could be easily tutored and therefore can be made a puppet in the hands of the elders. In this regard the law does not fix any particular age as to the competency of child witness or the age when they can be presumed to have attained the requisite degree of intelligence or knowledge.



 To determine the question of competency courts, often undertake the test whether from the intellectual capacity and understanding he is able to give a rational and intelligent account of what he has seen or heard or done on a particular occasion. Therefore it all depends upon the good sense and discretion of the judge.



Rameshwar V State Of Rajasthan:

    Here the accused was convicted for the rape of a 8 yrs. Old girl. The basis of this conviction was the statement made by the victim to her mother. On appeal the sessions court held that the evidence was sufficient enough to form the basis of a moral conviction, but was legally insufficient. when the matter reached to the high court, it was held that no doubt the law requires corroboration but here this statement itself is legally admissible as corroboration. Later the H.C. granted leave to appeal and therefore the matter reached to Supreme Court, where it made following observations:

Question of admissibility of this statement:



The assistant sessions judge certified that she did not understand the sanctity of an oath . But there was nothing to show whether the child understood her duty to speak the truth.

The apex court observed that the omission to administer an oath goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. Section 118 of the IEA makes it very clear that there is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise and since there is nothing as to suggest incompetence, therefore section 118 would prevail.

it is desirable that the judge or magistrate should always record their opinion as to whether the child understands his duty to speak the truth and also to state that why they think that ,otherwise the credibility of the witness would be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether.

In the situations where the judge or the magistrate doesn't make any express statement as to this effect then inferences has to be collected from the circumstances of the case. here, the assistant sessions judge omitted to administer the oath to the child as she could not understand its nature, but still continued to take her evidence , shows his intention to the fact that he was satisfied that the child understands her duty to speak the truth. Moreover, the accused also never raised any objection as to the same, at that stage.

our beloved" DO NOT MATTER DOES NOT MATTER" does not hurt anybody.he is like "kutty " a great curtunist-a great intelligent person.in upanisad mentioned---janya smakang sucharitani--tani sebitabyani -no itorani---take only good things and not ors.--like child witness. drscpratihar

To

Do not matter does not matter.

You are right in one aspect because the supreme court says " Cases are to be decided not on case laws and citations but on facts and evidence. " Further  a judgment is only binding between the parties to the case and only the ratio decidendi has a binding nature. With such clarity of thought I do not know why you use abusive language. A small honey drop can attract more flies than a ton of vinegar. You know what I mean. Please try to be courteous. Usko Kuch nahi lagta par fayde bahot hai.