In criminal trials, evidence forms the backbone of justice. Among various types of witnesses, a child witness often presents the most delicate situation — a blend of truth’s innocence and vulnerability’s uncertainty. Indian courts have consistently grappled with how to appreciate and evaluate the testimony of a child, balancing sensitivity with skepticism to ensure that justice is served without prejudice.
Who is a Child Witness?
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not define a “child witness”. However, Section 118 lays down that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers them incapable of understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender age, extreme old age, disease, or any other cause.
In simple terms, a child of any age can be a witness — so long as the court, after due examination, finds that the child possesses sufficient intelligence and understands the duty to speak the truth.
Judicial Approach and Key Principles
The appreciation of a child’s evidence depends not merely on age, but on intelligence, capacity, and credibility. Over the years, the Supreme Court and High Courts have evolved key principles governing such testimony:
-
Preliminary Examination: Before recording evidence, the judge must satisfy themselves about the child’s mental capacity and understanding of truth and falsehood. This is not a formal oath-taking but an evaluation of competency.
-
Corroboration Rule: Courts have held that while corroboration is not mandatory, it is desirable. Child testimony can form the basis of conviction if it is found credible and inspires confidence.
Cases like Panchhi v. State of U.P. (1998) emphasized that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated with great care and caution. -
Possibility of Tutoring: The foremost concern in child testimony is the possibility of tutoring or coaching. The court must ascertain through demeanor, consistency, and circumstances whether the child is narrating their own observation or repeating an adult’s prompting.
-
In-camera Proceedings: Modern legal developments, especially under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, have reinforced child-friendly procedures like in-camera trials to prevent trauma and intimidation.
Evidentiary Weight and Caution
Courts approach child witnesses with a combination of compassion and caution. A child’s evidence cannot be discarded merely due to age but must pass the reliability test. If found cogent and consistent, Indian courts have not hesitated to base convictions on a sole child witness.
For instance, in State of U.P. v. Krishna Master (2010), the Supreme Court reiterated that child witnesses are capable of reliable testimony if found truthful and natural. What matters is not the age, but the clarity and authenticity of their version.
Balancing Protection and Justice
The judicial system faces the dual challenge of protecting child witnesses and ensuring fair trial rights of the accused. Legislative measures like POCSO and judicial guidelines for recording evidence are steps toward creating a child-sensitive justice mechanism, acknowledging developmental psychology alongside legal principles.
Conclusion
The evidence of a child witness in India occupies a complex yet crucial space in the justice system. Courts have progressively evolved from outright skepticism to a balanced appreciation rooted in judicial discretion and empathy. Ultimately, the aim remains clear — to uncover the truth while safeguarding the tender mind that carries it.
Comments
Post a Comment