NEW DELHI: Holding that the evidence of a child witness stands on the same footing as any other witness if the child is competent to testify, Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced a man to life imprisonment for killing his wife by relying upon the statement of the couple’s seven-year-old daughter who witnessed the incident.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the order of Madhya Pradesh high court acquitting the accused by discarding the statement of his daughter who was present in the house when her mother was killed.
Child witness on same footing as others, but must be reliable: SC
The top court said the Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected outright.
“The only precaution which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring,” the bench said.
However, this in no manner means that the evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy, rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection,” the bench said.
It added, “While appreciating the testimony of a child witness, courts are required to assess whether the evidence of such witness is its voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others and whether the testimony inspires confidence.”
Terming child witnesses as dangerous because they are prone to being influenced, the apex court said trial courts should be alert about this aspect while recording the statement.
It said there is no rule requiring corroboration to the testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on it and the insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
“Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts, after careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition,” it said.
