Trial Court should have maintained a record regarding preliminary questions put to the child witness in order to determine the competency of the witness.
The principal evidence as pointed out by the Trial Court against the appellant is that of his own son Roshan P.W. 2 who is a child witness. He was 12 years old when his deposition was recorded in the year 1994 which means that he was 10 years old at the time of the incident. It is no doubt true that the Trial Court should have maintained a record regarding preliminary questions put to the child witness in order to determine the competency of the witness. Yet, the non-maintenance of the said record is not of much consequence since not only the Trial Court was satisfied about the competency of the witness
Bombay High Court
Nandeshwar vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: II (2002) DMC 71
Bench: R Batta, P Brahme
