Supreme Court: The court can not acquit Rape Accused if Child Victim is weeping and remaining silent at the time of recording of her evidence

Having considered the principles of law as above, let us now proceed further. We have independently examined the evidence of the witness, by placing reliance on whom the Trial Court recorded the conviction of Respondent-Accused, which was erroneously appreciated by the High Court, the same was reversed by the High Court. The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial Judge records that 'V' was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony regarding the commission of the offence. This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the Respondent. The tears of 'V', have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the Respondent. The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances. It has been held in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat   MANU/SC/1097/2018 : 2018:INSC:909 : (2019) 17 SCC 523, that a nine-year-old prosecutrix turning hostile would not be a fatal blow to the prosecution case when other evidence can establish the guilt of the Accused. In these facts, 'V' has not turned hostile. Trauma has engulfed her in silence. It would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution. A child traumatized at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her has to be relieved of being the basis on which her offender can be put behind bars. In almost all other cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix is present and forms an essential part of the conviction of an Accused, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast Rule that in the absence of such a statement a conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion. Reference can be made to State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat   MANU/SC/1411/2017 : 2017:INSC:1047 : (2018) 11 SCC 163, wherein the prosecutrix was "deaf and dumb and mentally retarded". The Court held that even in the absence of her being examined as a witness, other evidence on record was sufficient to record conviction of the Accused. The principle of law, therefore, is that if the prosecutrix is unable to testify, or for some justifiable reason remains unexamined, the possibility of conviction is automatically excluded. At this stage, it is important to record that we should not for a moment be understood saying that a person with a disability is by definition an incompetent witness. This Court in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P.   MANU/SC/0323/2021 : 2021:INSC:272 : (2021) 16 SCC 225 frowned upon an earlier observation made by this Court in Mange v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0165/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 349, wherein the Court observed "apart from being a child witness, she was also deaf and dumb and no useful purpose would have been served by examining her." {Para 17}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2017

Decided On: 18.03.2025

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chatra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0354/2025.

Print Page

Whether evidence of child witness is admissible in evidence if judge did not certify that child understood the duty of speaking the truth?

The first point taken before us related to the admissibility of the evidence of the girl herself. Her age was stated to be seven or eight years at the time of the examination by the learned. Assistant Sessions Judge who recorded her testimony. He certified that she did not understand the sanctity of an oath and accordingly did not administer one to her. He did not certify that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth. {Para 6}

7. The proviso to section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, prescribes that-"Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the Court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though he understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 6 shall not apply to such witness, but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth."

8. The question is whether the opinion referred to must be formally recorded or whether it can be inferred from the circumstances in which the deposition was taken.

9. The proviso quoted above must be read along with section 118 of the Evidence Act and section 13 of the Oaths Act. In my opinion, an omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. The question of competency is dealt with in section 118. Every witness is competent unless the Court considers he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. It will be observed that there is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise. No other ground of incompetency is given, therefore unless the Oaths Act adds additional grounds of incompetency it is evident that section 118 must prevail.

10. Now the Oaths Act does not deal with competency. Its main object is to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution. It is true a subsidiary object is to bring home to the witness the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, but, in view of section 118 these matters only touch credibility and not admissibility. In my opinion, section 13 of the Oaths Act places this beyond doubt. It states-

"No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation........ and no irregularity whatever, in the form in which any one of them is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever........."

11. Section 5 is the main provision regarding the administration of oaths. The proviso only sets out the cases in which the oath is not to be administered. If, therefore, an omission to take the oath does not affect the admissibility of the evidence, it follows that an irregularity of the kind we are considering which arises out of the proviso cannot affect the admissibility either Section 118 remains and unless the judge considers otherwise the witness is competent.

12. I do not think it will be useful to consider English authorities on the point because we are governed here by the terms of the various sections I have referred to. But a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is in point. Their Lordships stated in Mohamed Sugal Esa v. The King MANU/PR/0086/1945 : A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 3:-

"Section 13, Oaths Act, is quite unqualified in its terms and there is nothing to suggest that it is to apply only where the omission to administer the oath occurs per incuriam. If that had been the intention of the Legislature, it would have been simple to insert words in the section to that effect.........It may be observed that this question can no longer arise in India because in 1939 the Legislature passed the Oaths (Amendment) Act (Act XXXIX of 1939) which settles the law in accordance with the Bengal and Oudh decisions referred to above."

13. The decisions to which their Lordships refer are R. v. Sewa Bhogta 14 Beng. L.R. 294 F.N. and Ram Samujh v. Emperor (1907) 10 O.C. 337. The decisions there were that the section being unqualified in terms did apply to a case where the Court accepted the evidence of a child to whom the oath was not administered on the ground that the witness did not understand its nature. The principle of the decisions applies here because, as their Lordships observe, the section is unqualified in its terms.

14. I would add however that it is desirable that judges and magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that otherwise the credibility of witness may be seriously affected, so much so that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the magistrate or judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate.

In the present case, it is plain that the learned Judge had the proviso in mind because he certified that the witness does not understand the nature of an oath and so did not administer one but despite that went on to take her evidence. It is also an important fact that the accused, who was represented by counsel, did not object. Had he raised the point the Judge would doubtless have made good the omission. I am of opinion that Mst Purni was a competent witness and that her evidence is admissible. In the Privy Council case which I have just cited, their Lordships said-

"It is not to be supposed that any judge would accept as a witness a person who he considered was incapable not only of understanding the nature of an oath but also the necessity of speaking the truth when examined as a witness."

15. That is the very point here. One can presume that the learned Judge had that in mind from the fact that he examined the child after referring to a fact which arises out of the proviso.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1951

Decided On: 20.12.1951

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyid Fazl Ali and Vivian Bose, JJ.

Authored By : Vivian Bose, Saiyid Fazl Ali

Vivian Bose, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0036/1951,1951SCC 1213,1951 SCCONLINE SC 83,AIR 1952 SC 54.

Print Page

Whether in the absence of oath, the court can rely on evidence of child witness?

In the matter of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the aspect of competency and credibility of
child witness under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, in paragraph no.5 of the Judgment, held as under :

“A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts
and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of
conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath
the evidence of a child witness can be considered under
Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such
witness is able to understand the questions and able to
give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child
witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the
circumstances of each case. The only precaution which
the court should bear in mind while assessing the
evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a
reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any
other competent witness and there is no likelihood of
being tutored.”
25. It can be gathered very well that, the evidence of
master Krishna Akhade (PW-4) in the light of the aforesaid
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred
above, is reliable one and there is no likelihood of him being
tutored. When tests of reliability and free from tutoring are
satisfied, merely for the reason that oath was not administered
to master Krishna Akhade (PW-4), his evidence cannot be kept
out of consideration under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. From any angle, the arguments advanced by Mr P.S.
Paranjape, learned counsel for the appellant-accused that,
master Krishna Aakhade was not only incompetent, but also
tutored child witness, cannot be accepted, since nothing is
brought on record to substantiate the same either from his
cross-examination or from any prima facie cogent evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2014

Bhatu Himmat Akhade Vs  The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
AND B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

Decided on : 21-08-2020
JUDGMENT [ Per : B. U. Debadwar, J. ] :-

Print Page

Whether evidence of minor girl victim can be relied on if there is no cross examination to her evidence?

 In the   wake of the above medical
evidence, though the   evidence of prosecutrix that she was raped by
the   appellant/accused,   has   gone   unchallenged   in   the   crossexamination,
I think,  this Court should not   mechanically, nay  in a
pedantic way,  act on that  evidence  and record the conviction of the
appellant for the offence of rape.   After all there is  a duty   cast  on
the Court to  scan the  evidence according to law and not to record  the
moral   conviction. What is required is legal evidence. I find that the
learned trial Judge recorded  moral conviction for the offence  u/s 376
IPC.
7. There is one more  angle  about   the evidence of PW  2­
prosecutrix,  aged about 6 years,  as to why the  same cannot be  relied
upon  to convict the appellant. The reason is that she is a child witness,
aged about 6 to 8 years. As to the appreciation of  the evidence of child
witness,  this court  in the  case of  Baban  Bakkayya  Attre  vs. State
of  Maharashtra : 2001 (4)  Mh.L.J.  404    held in paragraph no.13
as under :­
“13. A   child   witness   is   certainly   a   competent

witness to depose before the Court. The Court would be
justified   in   convicting   an   accused   on   the   basis   of     the
evidence of  a child witness. If the court finds that the child
witness   has     the   capacity   of   understanding   and   gives
truthful answers,     a conviction could   be based on the
evidence of such child witness. The rule of prudence, now,
ripped  into rule of law, is to  seek corroboration to the
evidence   of   child    witness  before  the   evidence  of  child
witness is made a foundation for conviction. It is to be
always remembered   that  a child witness is susceptible to
being tutored. Because of  tutoring , the child witness is so
much   impressed   that   he   begins   to  believe   that  what   is
tutored to him is the truth. The court has, therefore, to be
extremely   cautious while accepting the evidence of the
child witness.”
8. The Courts  have repeatedly held  that the evidence of the
child  witnesses should be carefully  scrutinized as there is likelihood
of the child witnesses being tutored prone to  depose in the court in a
particular manner. But then there is a duty cast   on the Courts   to
evaluate   and assess the evidence of the child witnesses, that too in
juxtaposition   with   the   other   evidence,     even   if   the   evidence   of
prosecutrix   has   not   been   challenged   in   the   cross­examination   in   a
proper  manner. As such, for the  reasons given above, the  appellant

cannot be held   guilty of offence of rape by   relying   on the sole
testimony of the  prosecutrix,   aged about six years. Hence, I  am of
the opinion that the prosecution utterly     failed to prove the offence
u/s. 376 IPC  against the appellant and he must be  acquitted of the
said charge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 205  /1999
Yogiraj  s/o Pralhad  Ghule

v 
The  State of  Maharashtra

 CORAM :     A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED :     4th  February, 2016  
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)4715

Print Page

Whether Session Judge can adjourn cross examination of child witness without assigning any reason?

 Before adverting to another crucial piece of evidence
in the form of dying declarations it would not be out of place to
mention here that examination-in-chief of PW-4 Akshada was
recorded on 8th April, 2011. As can be seen from deposition, on
the application of learned counsel for Accused her crossexamination
was adjourned till next date. She was crossexamined
on 16th April, 2011. Above adjournment granted by Trial
Court only discloses that Trial Court was oblivious of specific
stipulation containing in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure which mandates requirement of sessions trial to be
carried on a day-to-day basis. No reason or special
circumstances have been assigned by the Trial Court to justify
grant of adjournment of eight days for cross-examination of a child
witness PW-4 Akshada.
16 In Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar3
, the
Honourable Supreme Court directed all the High Courts to remind
all the Trial Court Judges of the need to comply with Section 309
of the Code of Criminal Procedure in letter and spirit. In fact, High
Courts were directed to take note of conduct of any particular Trial
Judge who violates above legislative mandate and to adopt such
3 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692

administrative action against Judicial Officer as per law.
17 The above directions were reiterated once again in
case of State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh4
. Later in Akil
Alias Javed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)5
 in paragraph No.43 the
Honourable Apex Court expressed displeasure and observed
thus:
“43. It is unfortunate that in spite of the specific
directions issued by this Court and reminded once again
in Shambhu Nath such recalcitrant approach was being
made by the trial court unmindful of the adverse serious
consequences flowing therefrom affecting the society at
large. Therefore, even while disposing of this appeal by
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant by the learned trial Judge, as confirmed by the
impugned judgment of the High Court, we direct the
Registry to forward a copy of this decision to all the High
Courts to specifically follow the instructions issued by
this Court in the decision in Raj Deo Sharma and
reiterated in Shambhu Nath by issuing appropriate
circular, if already not issued. If such circular has
already been issued, as directed, ensure that such
directions are scrupulously followed by the trial courts
without providing scope for any deviation in following
the procedure prescribed in the matter of trial of
sessions cases as well as other cases as provided
4 (2001) 4 SCC 667
5 (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 125

under Section 309 CrPC. In this respect, the High
Courts will also be well advised to use their machinery
in the respective State Judiciary Academy to achieve
the desired result. We hope and trust that the
respective High Courts would take serious note of the
above directions issued in the decision in Raj Deo
Sharma which has been extensively quoted and
reiterated in the subsequent decision of this Court in
Shambhu Nath and comply with the directions at least in
the future years.”
18 Keeping various principles set out in above decisions
in mind when we examine situation that had occurred in present
case where PW-4 Akshada a crucial child witness was initially
examined on 8th April, 2011 and then without assigning any reason
cross-examined on 16th April, 2011 solely at the instance of
counsel for the Accused we disapprove the procedure followed by
the Trial Court Judge and direct the Registry to take serious note
and ensure compliance of the provisions of Section 309 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in letter and spirit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2012
Rajesh @ Raju s/o Nagnath @ Nivrutti
Sardiwal (Pardeshi),

V
State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : A. B. CHAUDHARI &
 INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 09th September, 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2220

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of child witness in dispute between father and mother?

Sweety, daughter of the parties, stepped into the witness box on 4.10.2002 and her age at that time was little above 14 years. The pregnancy of the respondent for the second time came to light in the first week of September 1996 at which time the child was 8 years old. However, appearing in the witness box, the child said that her mother was taken by her father to PGIMS Rohtak for delivery. She also gave the exact dates of not attending her school, the months in which her mother was allegedly beaten by her father and the date on which the appellant had allegedly asked her mother to withdraw the entire amount from the bank account. She gave specific dates when the appellant asked the respondent to bring all the money lying deposited at Jind and Hansi. How a child who was only 9 years old at that time could give the exact dates is beyond comprehension. Rather this goes to show that Sweety was thoroughly tutored by her mother before she appeared as a witness. In the cross examination she showed ignorance about her parents having lived separately from her grand-parents. Interestingly, she was able to give dates which she was not supposed to remember but she could not tell whether they were residing separately in Jind from the parents of the appellant or not. It is not believable that she did not know that her grand parents were living in the same city i.e. Jind where she was liviig for some time with her parents in a separate house. She, further down in the cross examination, stated that she used to be in the house of her grand-father or paternal aunt, till her mother returned to Jind from her duty and also stated that it took less than 10 minutes on two-wheeler to reach their rented house from the house of her grand-parents. She therefore knew that they were living separately from the grand-parents but earlier in the cross examination she said that she did not know about it. The statement of the girl, therefore, cannot be given much credence. She said that she did not know that her birthday was celebrated on 10.7.1996 and photographs were clicked. Surprisingly, she remembers the dates on which her father asked her mother to withdraw money from the bank and all the dates when her mother was allegedly beaten but she does not remember the celebration of her birthday. Nothing more is required to prove that she was a tutored witness. She being intelligent, could manage some of the answers in the cross examination but at other places she made it obvious that the entire statement was not voluntarily made and she was tutored by her mother in that regard.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Gopal vs Maya Rani on 22 August, 2014

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH

Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)375(P and H)

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of child victim of sexual assault?

 In a landmark judgment in a case involving brutal rape of a 3 year old girl in 2012, the Bench comprising of Pradeep Nandrajog and Mukta Gupta, JJ has ruled that the evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected per se. It is a rule of prudence that the Court has to closely scrutinize such evidence and if it is convinced about the quality thereto and the reliability of the child witness it can record conviction based on his testimony. While recognizing the fact that assessing the competency of a child witness is not easy and is filled with various difficulties, the Court also passed detailed guidelines on the nature of questions that should be put to a child witness for the said purpose.

The position of law relating to evidence of child witness was succinctly

stated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1997) 5 SCC 341

Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra in the following terms:-

"A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and

reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In

witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence

Act provided that such witness is able to understand the

questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The

evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would

depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only

precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing

the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a

reliable one and his/her demeanor must be like any other

competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.

The decision on the question whether the child witness has

sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who

notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of

intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination

which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well

as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision

of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher

court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his

conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary

because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live

in a world of make-believe. Though it is an established

principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they

are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaken and

moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful

scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that

there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way

of accepting the evidence of a child witness."

In the instant case a 3 year old girl was brutally raped by the accused which resulted in serious injuries to her person, requiring her to undergo three consecutive surgeries. It is important to mention here that the trial court had acquitted the accused while raising doubts on the testimony of the victim being tutored due to that fact that she did not say anything about rape or the person who had raped her, before the Magistrate about one month & twenty days after the incident and her testimony was recorded after about six months after the incident. The State had filed a leave to appeal against the said judgment.

The Court while reversing the trial court's decision, has held that as per the provisions of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872, all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that by reason of tender years they are incapable of understanding the questions asked and of giving rational answers. It is for the Judge to satisfy himself regarding fulfillment of the requirement of the said provision.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment Delivered on: October 13, 2014

 CRL.A. 1190/2014

STATE  V SUJEET KUMAR

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Dated;OCTOBER 13, 2014

Print Page

Whether evidence of child witness can be relied on if he has admitted that he is giving evidence as per say of police?

Are Eye Witnesses Reliable ?

The learned counsel for the appellant- accused

criticized the evidence of child witness P.W.5.

Reliance was

placed on the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan,

reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1398. It is argued that, the evidence

of child witness is required to be closely scrutinized and as a

matter of caution, the Court must find adequate corroboration to

the child witness evidence.

The argument is that, P.W.5

admitted in cross-examination that he was told by the police

that, in the Court he will have to tell the same thing as were

the witness.

written in his statement. We have gone through the evidence of

The witness has properly deposed regarding the

incident and in the cross-examination the answers given by the

witness show that he understands things properly.

He fairly

stated what the police had told him while recording his

statement. Even if police told him that at the time of evidence in

Court he will have to depose as per his statement, that by itself

does not mean that the police had not recorded what the child

told or recorded any statement on their own.

Being child

witness, if the police, after recording the statement of the

witness apprise him of the fact that in the Court also he will have

to say as per the statement, this by itself does not amount to

tutoring the witness and it does not make the evidence of

witness doubtful.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8 OF 2012

Komalsing s/o Ramsing Patil,V The State of Maharashtra,

Coram:S.S. SHINDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

Date of pronouncing judgment : 7/7/2014

Citation;2014 ALLMR(cri)3265 Bom

Print Page

Kerala HC: Precaution to be taken while recording evidence of child witness

 It is further urged that these two witnesses are child witnesses and hence we should not place much reliance on their testimony. There is no bar legally to accept even the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness and only prudence requires that the court should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child.

In the present case these witnesses, as will be clear hereafter, are fully corroborated by other eyewitnesses. The other objection that is urged before us is that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded, for the benefit of the appellate court, the questions and answers in the preliminary examination he held. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded the questions and answers as they are, though he has recorded the fact of his questioning the witnesses and his satisfaction regarding the competency of the witnesses.

We would at this stage observe that it is very desirable that a trial judge should preserve on record, apart from the evidence of the child witness in the case, the questions he put to the witness in the preliminary examination and the answers which would help the appellate court to come to the conclusion whether or not the trial judge's decision in regard to the competency of the child witness was right or wrong.

In this case there is a statement of the learned Sessions Judge that he had questioned the witnesses-and was satisfied that they were able to realise that they should speak the truth and were also in a position to give pertinent answers. In view of that we do not think that there is any infirmity attached to the evidence of these two witnesses.

Kerala High Court

Varkey Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 1960

Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Ker 301

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of Child Witness?

Precautions which must be borne in mind in evaluating the evidence of a child-witness 

In Bhojraj v. Sitaram, AIR 1936 PC 60, it was pointed out that 

"The real tests are how consistent the story is with itself, how-it-stands the test of cross-examination and how far it fits in with the rest of the evidence and circumstances of the case."

Print Page