Legal Scrutiny of Child Witness Testimony in India
This article examines the admissibility of child witness testimony, judicial interpretation, safeguards against tutoring, and evaluation challenges.
Child witness testimony plays a crucial role in criminal trials, especially in cases where the child is the sole or key eyewitness to the crime. However, courts must ensure that such testimony is reliable and free from external influence or tutoring. In India, the competency of a child witness is evaluated under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 124 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) which states that any person, regardless of age, can testify unless the court believes they cannot understand the questions or provide rational answers.
This article examines the legal framework and judicial approach towards child witness testimony in India, specifically focusing on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025 INSC 261), where the sole eyewitness was a child.
Legal Framework Governing Child Witness Testimony
1) Competency of a Child Witness
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 124 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) governs the admissibility of testimony by minors. It states:
“All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions due to tender years, extreme old age, disease—whether of body or mind—or any other cause.”
Thus, there is no strict age restriction on who can testify. Instead, the court must evaluate whether the child understands the duty of speaking the truth.
2) Oath Requirement for Child Witnesses
The Oaths Act, 1969, under Section 4, allows a judge to determine whether a child under 12 years should take an oath before testifying. Even if no oath is administered, their testimony is admissible as long as the court is convinced of their credibility.
Test for Reliability of Child Witnesses
Indian courts have established that while child witnesses can be competent, their testimony must be approached with caution due to their susceptibility to external influences. The following principles guide judicial assessment:
- Preliminary Examination by the Court: Before recording testimony, courts assess whether the child understands the difference between truth and falsehood.
- Corroboration Rule: While child witness testimony can form the sole basis for conviction, courts generally seek corroborative evidence to ensure reliability.
- Evaluation of Demeanor: The child's ability to withstand cross-examination and remain consistent in their statements is crucial.
- Assessment of Tutoring: Courts examine whether the child may have been tutored or influenced by others.
Background of the Case
The case involved the alleged murder of Virendra Kumari by her husband, Balveer Singh. The sole eyewitness was their seven-year-old daughter, Rani (PW6), who testified that she saw her father strangling her mother. The trial court convicted Balveer Singh based on Rani’s testimony, but the High Court overturned the conviction, citing concerns about tutoring and delayed recording of the child’s statement.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court erred in discarding Rani’s testimony.
Trial Court's Reliance on Child Testimony
The trial court found Rani’s testimony credible and ruled in favour of her spontaneity, consistency, and corroboration with other circumstantial evidence. The key findings included:
(a) Direct Eyewitness Account: Rani testified that she saw her father pressing her mother’s neck with his leg.
(b) Spontaneous Disclosure: She informed her maternal uncle and others in the village about her mother's death.
(c) Corroborative Evidence: The clandestine cremation of the deceased at night without informing villagers raised suspicion.
(d) Denial of Tutoring: Rani, when cross-examined, denied being coached or influenced.
Thus, the trial court convicted Balveer Singh under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the context of new criminal laws, the trial court convicted Balveer Singh under Sections 103 (murder) and 238 (causing the disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
High Court’s Reversal and Acquittal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the trial court’s conviction, citing three primary concerns:
I) Delayed Statement Recording (18 Days Delay)
The High Court found it questionable that the police recorded Rani’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.(Section 180 of BNSS) after 18 days of the incident.
The delay allowed room for possible tutoring, especially as Rani was living with her maternal relatives, who had strained relations with the accused.
II) Suppression of Morgue Inquiry Statement
The High Court noted that Rani’s earlier statement in the morgue inquiry was not produced as evidence, raising doubts about why it was omitted.
It inferred that her initial statement might not have implicated the accused, and only the later police statement (after tutoring) accused Balveer Singh.
III) Lack of Corroborative Evidence
While the prosecution claimed that the deceased’s clandestine cremation indicated foul play, the High Court observed that local villagers did not object to the cremation, making it difficult to establish a case of murder.
Testimonies of other prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4) contained contradictions, reducing the weight of their supporting evidence.
Based on these findings, the High Court acquitted Balveer Singh, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court, while analyzing the judgment, emphasized the proper test for evaluating child witness testimony. It reaffirmed several principles:
- Competency v. Reliability: A child’s ability to understand questions and provide rational answers does not automatically mean their testimony is reliable.
- Delayed Statement Concerns: The Court noted that long delays in recording child witness statements increase the likelihood of tutoring.
- Judicial Scrutiny of Morgue Inquiry: The failure to produce Rani’s initial morgue statement suggested possible suppression of evidence by the prosecution.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of Balveer Singh, ruling that reasonable doubt existed regarding the reliability of Rani’s testimony.
Judicial Precedents on Child Witness Testimony
The Supreme Court referenced several key judgments on the subject:
I) Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341: In this case, the Supreme Court held:
“A child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable, such evidence could be the basis of conviction. The only precaution courts should bear in mind is that the witness must be reliable, and there should be no likelihood of tutoring.”
This judgment highlights the rule of prudence, which advises corroboration of child witness testimony but does not make it mandatory.
II) Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64: The Supreme Court observed:
“Though child witnesses are often considered unreliable due to their susceptibility to influence if their testimony inspires confidence, it can be relied upon without corroboration.”
The credibility of a child's witness depends on their consistency, ability to recall events, and the absence of signs of external influence.
III) Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 777): This case emphasized the importance of preliminary examination before allowing a child witness to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge must record an assessment of the child’s ability to understand and truthfully narrate events.
Challenges in Evaluating Child Witness Testimony
1. Memory Distortion
Children’s memories are fragile and susceptible to reconstruction errors due to repeated questioning, exposure to leading questions, or suggestive influences.
2. Fear and Pressure
Children often hesitate to testify due to fear of repercussions, intimidation, or family pressure. The presence of unfamiliar legal figures may also lead to inconsistent statements.
3. Psychological Factors
Young witnesses may struggle with understanding complex legal questions, recalling events with accuracy, or distinguishing reality from suggestion. This can result in confabulation, where they unintentionally mix real and imagined events.
Conclusion
The ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025) underscores the complexity of child witness testimony and the need for careful judicial scrutiny. While child witnesses can be valuable in criminal trials, courts must ensure that their statements are:
- recorded promptly to minimize the risk of external influence.
- corroborated by independent evidence whenever possible.
- assessed for tutoring, particularly when the child is under the guardianship of parties hostile to the accused.
In cases where undue delay and potential coaching are evident, as in Balveer Singh’s case, courts may extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused. However, this should not deter the legal system from ensuring justice for victims where child testimony is credible and supported by other evidence.
Child witnesses play an essential role in the judicial system, particularly in cases of abuse, domestic violence, and homicide. However, their testimony requires careful scrutiny to rule out external influence, coaching, or psychological distortions.
The Indian judiciary has established safeguards, ensuring that child witnesses are:
- Competent to testify.
- Evaluated for possible tutoring.
- Not treated as inherently unreliable.
- Subjected to a preliminary judicial assessment.
While child witnesses can provide critical evidence, their testimony should be corroborated whenever possible to ensure fair trials and just convictions. Courts must balance the need for justice with the protection of vulnerable witnesses, ensuring that the truth is established without coercion or undue influence.
