A PROJECT WORK ON

Convictions Based Solely on Child Witness Statements

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Neha Sinha

Faculty, Law of Evidence

SUBMITTED BY
Pallavi Joshi
SEM-VII
BATCH-XII
ROLL NO. 89.

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY RAIPUR,

CHHATTISGARH

1 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements...03
Research Methodology.04
Introduction...05
Child Witness....07
Legality and Admissibility of Child Witness........10
Competency of Child Witness...............................13
Credibility of Child Witness..17
Conclusion..20
Bibliography...21

2 | Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is not just a customary acknowledgement of help that I received but a sincere expression
of gratitude to all those who have helped me to complete this project and made it seem
apparently more readable than otherwise it would have been.

I am in debt to my faculty advisor for giving me the topic convictions based solely on child
witness statements.
I am also grateful to all my friends who have given valuable suggestions pertaining to the
topic and have been a constant source of help and support.

Sincere Thanks.
(Pallavi Joshi)
Batch XII
Roll no. 89
Semester VII

3 | Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has adopted the doctrinal methodology and the paper is descriptive in nature.
The researcher has mainly resorted to several online articles for the completion of the project.
However the documentary material in the form of books and articles in the library has also
been referred to for the subject matter at hand.

4 | Page

INTRODUCTION
Witnesses and document are the chief sources of evidence. A witness is a person who gives
testimony or evidence before any court. As a matter of fact every person is competent to give
evidence but in certain circumstances he may not be compelled to give evidence. Often oral
evidence is needed to clarify or help determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in a
legal proceeding.
Witnesses can be the people or experts with valuable input for the case. It is through
witnesses and documents that evidence is placed before the court. Even the genesis of
documents can be proved by the witnesses. Thus, the law has to be very clear with regards to
certain issues like who is a competent witness? How many witnesses are needed to prove a
fact? Can a witness be compelled to answer every question posed? How can the credibility of
the witnesses be tested? Whether a witness can refer to notes to refresh his memory and what
are the judges standing with respect to the witnesses?
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 generically lays down who may testify. Prima
facie, the section says that everyone is competent to be a witness as long as they can
understand and respond to the questions posed and the Court is expected to pay special
attention to the capability of the witnesses. This section is not concerned with the
admissibility of the testimony of the witnesses or their credibility; it deals with competency
of parties to be witnesses. A witness has a privilege i.e. a right to refuse to give answer to the
question. There are certain persons who enjoy certain privilege and they cannot be compelled
to testify.
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.
A witness is said to be competent when there is nothing in law to prevent him from appearing
in court and giving evidence. Whether a witness is competent, depends on his capacity to
understand the question put to him and the capacity to give rational answers thereto. By
competency to give evidence is meant that there is no legal bar against the person concerned
to testify in a court.
The Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes all persons as competent to testify
the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions (a) by tender
5 | Page

years, (b) extreme old age, or (c) disease. Thus understanding is the sole test of competency.
The test of competency is the capacity to understand the questions and to give rational
answers. The court has to ascertain, in the best way it can, whether from the extent of
intellectual capacity and understanding he is able to give a rational account of what he has
seen or heard or done on particular occasion.
Thus, it can be said that every person is competent to give evidence provided he satisfied the
test of the being able to understand the questions which are put to him, and he is in a position
to give rational answers to those questions. Any person who satisfies these tests shall be
competent to testify. A child, deaf and dumb persons can give evidence.

6 | Page

CHILD WITNESS
Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , a child can be competent witness.
Before admitting or recording the statement of a child, the court must satisfy itself that:
1. The witness understands the questions, and
2. Ascertain in the best way it can, whether from the extent of his intellectual capacity and
understanding he is able to give a rational account of what he has seen, heard or done on a
particular occasion.
If a person of tender years can satisfy the requirements, his competency as a witness is
established. 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.
Although recognizing that children may be less likely than adults to give reliable testimony,
the courts have been reluctant to hold that, because of age, children below the designated age
are per se incompetent to testify. Rather, the competency of child witnesses of any age must
be established on a case-by-case determination of whether the childs testimony will enhance
justice.
Do children make good witnesses, and are young children as reliable as older ones? Are they
as reliable as adults? Are they more prone to lies or suggestion or errors of perception? Is it
possible to identify features or characteristics which distinguish truthful child testimony from
that which has been invented, or planted in the childs mind by others? Can more be done to
ease the stress or distress which giving evidence may involve?
Children are the most vulnerable of all witnesses. Several factors influence childrens
memory capacity, including the childs age, psychological development and intellectual
ability, the complexity of the event, their familiarity with the event and the delay between the
event and the time at which the event is recalled. The intimidation of potential child witnesses
7 | Page

by interviewers remains a problem, and it is possible that false suggestions might be

implanted in a childs mind1. 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. Although childrens evidence has historically
been seen as weak, experimental studies have shown that when children are allowed to recall
information freely, or when information is elicited through the use of general questions,
even very young children can give evidence that is as accurate as that given by adults.
Two major concerns about child witnesses are their competence and credibility as witnesses.
Although, childrens actual ability to provide accurate and reliable evidence is critical to their
role as witnesses, so too is their perceive reliability. Unless children are perceived as reliable
witnesses, their evidence will not be effective and may not even be heard. Even if children
are capable of giving accurate evidence, their evidence will be of limited value unless they
are perceived as credible witnesses by those dealing with them: lawyers, prosecutors, police
and judges.
In Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 2, the Court examined the
provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and held that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that
he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers
by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause
of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise.
The Court further held as under:
..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 the 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.

1 Bagdi Ram v State of Rajasthan ,1984 Raj LW 10

2 AIR 1952 SC 54
8 | Page

In Suresh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh3, it was decided that a child as young as 5 years can
depose evidence if he understands the questions and answers in a relevant and rational
manner. The age is of no consequence, it is the mental faculties and understanding that matter
in such cases. Their evidence, however, has to be scrutinized and caution has to be exercised
as per each individual case. The court has to satisfy itself that the evidence of a child is
reliable and untainted.

3 AIR 1981 SC 1122

9 | Page

LEGALITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CHILD

WITNESS
All witnesses who testify in court must be competent or able to testify at trial. In general, a
witness is assumed to be competent.4 This presumption applies to child witnesses. It is well
known that the attitude of children to reality and truth differs widely from that of adults and
that, while some young children will make fairly reliable witnesses, it is absurd to expect true
testimony from others though older.
The traditional view about child witness is reflected in the United States Supreme Courts
1895 decision in Wheeler v. United States5. In that case the court held that the 5-year-old son
of a murder victim was properly qualified as a witness:
That the boy was not by reason of his youth, as a matter of law, absolutely disqualified as a
witness, is clear. While no one would think of calling as a witness an infant only two or three
years old, there is no precise age which determines the question of competency. This depends
on the capacity and intelligence o f the child, his appreciation of the difference between truth
and falsehood, as well as of his duty to tell the former. The decision of this question rests
primarily with the trial judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his
apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and 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.
In Rameshwar v. State Of Rajasthan6, the accused was convicted for the rape of an eight
year 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 High Court granted leave to appeal and
therefore the matter reached to Supreme Court, where it made observations with regard to the
4 Changan Dam v. State Of Gujrat, 1994 CrLJ 66 SC
5 9 U.S. 523 (1895)
6 AIR 1952 SC 54
10 | P a g e

question of admissibility of the 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 doesnt 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. Though,
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires that every statement of an accomplice
must be corroborated but a vast majority of cases show that it is not a very hard and fast rule,
especially in rape cases and that too of a child of tender year. On the basis of the above
observations the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the High Court.
The Supreme Court has held in Dalip Singh v. State Of Punjab7, that if it appears from the
version of teenaged children that it is so truthful that can be rightly believed then the
arguments like children were tutored or had given the prosecution version parrot like and so
on are not acceptable. It has been held by the Supreme Court that 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 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . It
will be observed that there is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise.
It has been further held been further held that an omission of the court of the authority
examining a child witness, formally to record that in its opinion the witness understands the
duty of speaking the truth, though he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation,
does not affect the admissibility of the evidence given by that witness.

7 AIR 1979 SC 1176

11 | P a g e

In State of Maharashtra v. Dama Gopinath Shinde8, it was held by the Supreme Court that a
girl of seven years of age has lost her neighbour and playmate, the deceased, while they were
playing together. Later on the dead body of the deceased was recovered. It was held by
Supreme Court that the rejection of testimony of child solely on the ground that it was not
possible for a child of that age to remember what happened three years ago was not proper.
In Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh9 case, it was held that a child who is not administered
oath due to his young years and is not required to give coherent or straight answers as a
privileged witness can give evidence but this evidence should not be relied upon totally and
completely.
Thus the competency of a child to give evidence is not regulated by the age but by the degree
of understanding he appears to possess and no fixed rule can be laid down as to the credit that
should be assigned to his testimony. The question depends upon a number of circumstances
such as the possibility of tutoring the consistency of the evidence, how far it stood the test of
cross examination and how far it fits in with the rest of evidence.

8 AIR 2000 SC 1691

9 AIR 1981 SC 1122

12 | P a g e

COMPETENCY OF CHILD WITNESS

The competency of children as witnesses presents an ancient problem faced by every system
of jurisprudence. The courts are aware that children often witness crucial events associated
with pending litigation. And, likewise, the courts are cognizant of the limitations of children
on the stand. A tendency to interweave imagination with fact, to recite testimony propounded
by parents and counsel, to unconsciously invoke the sympathy of a jury, to prejudice a
defendants case by the propensity of a jury to rely too heavily upon a childs testimony are a
few of the complexities that have disturbed the legal profession.
In order to be a competent witness, a child has to have sufficient intelligence. The child has to
be able to remember and describe events and must understand the difference between the
truth and a lie.10 Even very young children can be competent witnesses. Various factors affect
the reliability or a childs testimony. In determining a childs competency to testify, the courts
have tended to place primary emphasis o n the childs ability to differentiate truth from
falsehood, to comprehend the duty to tell the truth, and to understand the consequences of not
fulfilling this duty. This inquiry has often followed a line of questions on Voir dire directed
toward ascertaining a childs religious and moral beliefs. The child need not, however,
understand the legal and religious nature of an oath.
While necessary, adherence to the truth is not sufficient to establish competency. There is also
a necessity that the child has cognitive skills adequate to comprehend the event he or she
witnessed and to communicate memories of the event in response to questions at trial. If a
childs view of the truth bears little resemblance to reality, it will also have little value to the
Trier of fact. Thus, competency to testify implies some measure of competency at the time of
the event witnessed as well as at the time of the trial. The child must be able to organize the
experience cognitively and to differentiate it from his or her other thoughts and fantasies.
Furthermore, the child must be able to maintain these skills under psychological stress and
under pressure, real or perceived, from adult authority figures to shape his or her responses in
a particular way. Thus, level of suggestibility is an important factor. The assessment of a
10 Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516
13 | P a g e

childs competency to testify may require a rather extensive and formal assessment of the
childs cognitive, moral, and emotional capacities on Voir dire.
In State v. Allen11, it was observed that the burden of proving incompetence is on the party
opposing the witness. The Court considered five factors when determining competency of a
child witness. Absence of any of them renders the child incompetent to testify. They are:

1. An understanding of the obligation to speak the truth on the witness stand;

2. The mental capacity at the time of the occurrence concerning which he is to testify,
to receive an accurate impression of it;

3. A memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of the occurrence;

4. The capacity to express in words his memory of the occurrence; and

5. The capacity to understand simply questions about it.

The plain and simple test of competency is whether a witness can understand the questions
being posed to him and answer accordingly in a rational manner. Competency of witness to
testify is actually a prerequisite to him being administered an oath. In Rameshwar v. State Of
Rajasthan12, it was held that an omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to
the credibility of the witness and not to his competency.
In M.Sugal v. The King13, it was decided that a girl of about ten years of age could give
evidence of a murder in which she was an eye-witness as she could understand the questions
and answer them frankly even though she was not able to understand the nature of oath.
Child witness as far as defence is concerned is dangerous witness. Because once tutored they
stick on that version in any circumstances. The court can check for a level of understanding in
the child witness and then decide to refrain from taking evidence from them. Before putting a
11 70 Wn.2d 690, 424 P.2d 1021 (1967)
12 AIR 1952 SC 54

13 1945 48 BLR 138

14 | P a g e

child into witness box a Voir dire test must be conducted by the Court.14 As a matter of
prudence courts often show cautiousness while 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.
Assessment of Voir dire:
Voir dire is a phrase in law which comes from Anglo-Norman. In origin it refers to an oath to
tell the truth, i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest in
content, or both? The word voir (or voire), in this combination, comes from Old French
which states, that which is true.
Under this test the court puts certain preface 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, fathers
name or their place of residence. 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 of the child witness the 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. 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, then further court starts with
substantial questions which are considered as evidences.
In Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra15, the Supreme Court
observed that the evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right
and wrong and the court may find out from the cross- examination whether the defence
lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right
and wrong. The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions to him
14 Govind Balvant Laghate v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Bom 229
15 AIR 2009 SC 2292
15 | P a g e

and even if no such questions had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence on an oath
and the import of the questions that were being put to him.
In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra16, the Apex Court dealing
with the child witness has observed as under:
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 makebelieve. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as
they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped 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.
Children are seen as more likely than adults to accede to leading or suggestive questioning,
and to revise their testimony in response to coaching, threats, and challenges to their integrity.
They were also seen as much less likely to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Thus
judges and magistrates have ultimate control over the admission or exclusion of evidence.
Special rules have attended the reception of childrens testimony because their evidence has
traditionally been considered to be inherently unreliable. Although the restrictions on the
admissibility of childrens evidence have been eased in many jurisdictions, their competence
to testify is generally still subject to judicial discretion.17
A child need not understand the special importance that the truth should be told in court or
understand every single question or give a readily understood answer to every question.
Provided that she could understand the questions put to her by the prosecution and the
defence and could provide understandable answers, she was competent.

16 AIR 2008 SC 1460

17 State of Delhi v Vijay Pal, (1980) 1 SCC 582
16 | P a g e

CREDIBILITY OF CHILD WITNESS

As a matter of prudence courts often show cautiousness while 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. Norbury18, 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. The Supreme Court in Tahal Singh v.
Punjab19, observed:
In our country, particularly in rural areas it is difficult to think of a lad of 13 year as a child.
A vast majority of boys around that age go in fields to work. They are certainly capable of
understanding the significance of the oath and necessity to speak the truth.
In this regard a very important observation has been made in Jarina Khatun v. State of
Assam20, that the Trial Court is the best judge in the matter of deciding the competency of
such a witness as there, the child himself appears before the court. Therefore it has an
opportunity to see him, notice his demeanours, record his evidence and thereafter on scrutiny
accepted his testimony.
18 (1978) Crim. LR 435
19 AIR 1979 SC 1347
20 1992 Cr LJ 733
17 | P a g e

The Supreme Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh. v. Ramesh & Anr21., has examined the law
relating to deposition by Child Witnesses. While examining the law on the aspect the Court
has observed that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his
deposition inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no embellishment or
improvement therein, the Court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness
must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to
tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the
Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether the child
has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.
In the 90s a trend emerged where the Courts started recording their opinions that child
witnesses had understood their duty of telling the truth to lend credibility to any evidence
collected thereof. The Supreme Court has also commended this practice. If the court is
satisfied, it may convict a person without looking for collaboration of the childs witness. It
has been stated many a times that support of a childs evidence should be a rule of prudence
and is very desirable.
Need for Corroboration:
Though Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires that every statement of
compliance must be corroborated, but a vast majority of cases show that it is not a very hard
and fast rule, especially in cases which involve children of tender age. There is difference
between what the rule is and what has been hardened into a rule of law. In such cases the
judge must give some indication that he has had this rule of caution in mind and should
proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of
the particular case before him and show why he considers it safe to convict without
corroboration in that particular case.
In Panchhi & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh22, the Court while placing reliance upon a large
number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find
adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom
than of law. It cannot be held that the evidence of a child witness would always stand
irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be
21 2011 (5) SCR 1
22 AIR 1998 SC 2726
18 | P a g e

rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be
evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be
swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.
The Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh. v. Krishna Master & Ors23., held that there is no
principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to
recapitulate the facts in his memory. A child is always receptive to abnormal events which
take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child
may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In
case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or
embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require
any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or
ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court
that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the
child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a
serious nature.
In Mangoo & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh24, the Apex Court while dealing with the
evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however,
it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been
tutored. The Court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be
ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are
any traces of tutoring.
Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part
can be separated from untutored part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires
confidence. In such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into
consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness.

23 AIR 2010 SC 3071

24 AIR 1995 SC 959
19 | P a g e

In a very recent case State of Madhya Pradesh. v. Ramesh & Anr25., in which a trial court
based its conviction on the evidence given by an eight-year-old daughter of a murdered man,
the Supreme Court had stated that:
..There is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age will not be
able to recapitulate the facts in his memory A child is always receptive to
abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest
of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the
same in future.. In case a child explains relevant events at the crime (scene) without
improvement or embellishment, and the same inspire the confidence of the court, his
deposition does not require corroboration whatsoever. The child at tender age is incapable of
having any malice or ill-will against any person

CONCLUSION
Children present a special challenge when they become participants in the legal system. The
child witness presents a double truss for those conducting a forensic interview. In my opinion
young children produce a higher percentage of accurate and relevant information in a free
recall situation in which they are merely asked to tell in their words everything they
remember, without prompts, cues, or suggestions.
But young children are gullible and vulnerable to making serious errors in their court
testimony. When children are questioned skilfully and appropriately and supported and
encouraged to tell their story in their own words, they can provide accurate and forensically
useful information. But when questioners use suggestive, leading, specific, and coercive
questioning to get the child to confirm pre existing biases about abuse, there is a risk of
eliciting false statements from the child.
Several factors influence childrens memory capacity, including the childs age, psychological
development and intellectual ability, the complexity of the event, their familiarity with the
25 2011 (5) SCR 1
20 | P a g e

event and the delay between the event and the time at which the event is recalled. Children
could be easily tutored and therefore can be made a puppet in the hands of the elders.
Though a child may be competent witness, a closer scrutiny of its evidence is should be done
before it is accepted. The competency of a child is not consistent and her statement probably
may be drawn upon her imagination sometimes. So the deposition of a child witness may
require corroboration, but in case if the deposition inspires the confidence of the court and
there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The
evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection
because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a
child has been tutored, the Court should reject his statement partly or fully. However, an
inference as to whether a child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his
deposition. Thus it can be concluded that a child witness is a privileged witness and their
competency and credibility is to be decided by the court which may differ from case to case.

BIBILIOGRAPHY
Books Referred
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Evidence Act, (19th ED. : 2010) (Central Law Agency,
Allahabad)

Articles / Websites Referred

1 www.childwitness.com (Last Visited: Aug 23, 2015).
2 http://childwitnesstoviolence.org (Last Visited : Aug 24, 2015)
3 David B. Battin & Stephen J. Ceci, Children as Witnesses: What We Hear Them Say May
Not Be What They Mean, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51991065/Children-as-WitnessesWhat-We-Hear-Them-Say-May, (Last Visited :Aug 23, 2015)

TABLE OF CASES
1. Akhoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Emperor, AIR 1919 Cal 1021
2. Bagdi Ram v State of Rajasthan ,1984 Raj LW 10
21 | P a g e

3. Changan Dam v. State Of Gujrat, 1994 CrLJ 66 SC

4. Dalip Singh v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1176
5. Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516
6. Govind Balvant Laghate v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Bom 229
7. Jarina Khatun v. State of Assam, 1992 Cr LJ 733
8. Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2292
9. M. Sugal v. The King, 1945 48 BLR 138
10. Magan Lal Radhakrishnan v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Nag 173
11. Mangoo & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 959
12. Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1460
13. Panchhi & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 2726
14. Prakash Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 65
15. R v. Norbury, (1978) Crim. LR 435
16. Ram Jolaha v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Pat. 406
17. Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54
18. S Rasul v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Sind 129
19. Sataji Nathaji v. State, 1975 Mah Cr R 278
20. State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690, 424 P.2d 1021 (1967)
21. State of Delhi v Vijay Pal, (1980) 1 SCC 582
22. State of Karnataka v. Shahbuddin,1955 Mad LJ 748 (Cr)
23. State of Madhya Pradesh. v. Ramesh & Anr, 2011 (5) SCR 1
24. State of Maharashtra v. Dama Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691
25. State of Uttar Pradesh. v. Krishna Master & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3071
26. Suresh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1122
27. Tahal Singh v. Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347
28. Wheeler v. United States, 9 U.S. 523 (1895).

22 | P a g e