What Happens When A Child is Produced Before The Court As A Witness?

The witness is one of the key players in the justice delivery system. He comes to help the court in reaching the correct point of the matter and to administer justice. Hence his statements are of paramount importance.

According to Bentham, witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. A witness is an individual who has seen a crime being committed and is able to give evidence in court.

Chapter IX of the Indian evidence Act deal with competency, compellability, privileges and quantity of witnesses required for judicial decisions.

Section 118 of the Act states that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions and unable to give rational answers to those questions.

Thus, every person is competent to be a witness. It is the discretion of the court to see whether the person is capable of understanding the questions and his ability to give rational answers to those questions.

Even a lunatic is not declared as incompetent unless his lunacy prevents him from understanding or answering questions.

Great sensitivity needs to be employed in recording the evidence of a child witness, particularly a child victim. It has to be recorded that he has sufficient intelligence to understand the questions and answer them rationally as per section 118 of the Evidence Act.

As per the oath Act, the oath cannot be given to a child below 12 years.  If the child is above 12 years of age then,  it has to be ascertained whether the child knows the sanctity of the oath.

If he knows the sanctity of the oath then the oath can be administered.

Child witness :

In the light of section 118 of the evidence Act, child witnesses are not departed from giving evidence.  The major problem with regard to child witnesses is the child's competency and credibility in the form of a witness.

A child, not being a mature is more prone to fantasy and with limited memorial abilities.

In Panchhi V. State Of UP - Supreme Court held that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection, because there are chances that the child maybe influenced by what others tell to them and thus child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.

 

In Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak V. State Of Gujarat - The Supreme Court held that, the decision on the question whether the child witness has the sufficient intelligence rest with the trial judge and the judge may resort to any examination which will disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath

It is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are influenced easily, shaked and moulded. but after careful scrutiny of their evidence court satisfies the truth in it, then the child can be accepted as a witness.

In S. Amutha V. C. Manivanna Bhupathy - the court summarized as follows:

1. There is no disqualification for a child witness

2. The court must conduct a preliminary enquiry before allowing a child witness to be examined.

3. Court must be satisfied with the mental capability of a child before giving evidence.

4. While considering evidence of the child the possibility of a bias or chances of the child being tutored should be taken note.

5. Evidence of child should be corroborated

6. A child-friendly atmosphere must be created in courts.

 

Whether any age limit for child witnesses :

In Wheeler V. United States - rule laid by US Supreme Court that, " while no one would think of calling as a witness an infant only 2 or 3 years old, there is no precise age which determines the question of competency.  This depends upon the capacity and intelligence of the child. His ability to distinguish truth and falsehood.

In Dhani V. State - the court held that no precise age limit can be given, as persons of the same age differ in mental growth and their ability to understand questions and giving rational answers. The sole test is whether the witness has sufficient intelligence to depose or whether he can appreciate the duty of speaking the truth.

In Bhagwan Singh  V. State Of MP -  Supreme Court observed  that the law recognizes the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at the age of 6 years who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding cannot be treat as a witness.