Supreme Court lays down guidelines for testimony of Child Witnesses

Posted On - 17 March, 2025 • By - Deepika Kumari

Introduction

In a recent criminal appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court which allowed the acquittal of the accused booked under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the principles dealing with the cases wherein a child has been involved as a witness.

A division bench comprising Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra has summarised the following principles:

  1. According to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, there is no minimum prescribed age for a competent witness and therefore no testimony of a witness can be discarded merely based on their age.
  2. According to the provisions of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, before the evidence statements of a child witness are recorded, a preliminary investigation is necessary to be conducted by the Trial Court for ascertaining whether the child witness possesses the mental capacity to understand the sanctity of giving evidence and the importance of questions being posed to him/her.
  3. Before the evidence of a child witness is recorded, it is the responsibility of the Trial Court to record its opinion and satisfaction that the Child Witness understands its duty to speak the truth and must clearly state the reasons for his opinion.
  4. The Trial Court must document the questions asked of the child during the preliminary examination, as well as the child’s manner and capacity for logical and cogent response.
  5. If a child witness is determined to be competent to depose—that is, able to comprehend the questions posed to them and provide thoughtful, logical responses—their testimony would be allowed as evidence.
  6. The Trial Court must also document the child witness’s conduct throughout the deposition and cross-examination, as well as whether the child witness’s testimony was given voluntarily and not under duress.
  7. The testimony of a child witness does not need to be verified in order to be taken into consideration. Without the necessity for confirmation, a child witness who behaves like any other competent witness and whose testimony inspires confidence can be trusted and used as the only foundation for conviction.
  8. If it is determined that the child witness’s testimony is either tutored or has significant inconsistencies or contradictions, the courts may insist for confirmation of the child witness’s testimony as a precautionary and prudent measure.
  9. Since children are easily influenced, shaped, and moulded, they are regarded as dangerous witnesses, and as such, the courts must exclude the possibility of tutoring. The courts must rely on the credibility-boosting evidence of such a witness when assessing the accused’s guilt or innocence if, following a thorough investigation, they discover that the prosecution has not attempted to utilize the child witness for any hidden agendas or provided tutoring.
  10. A child witness’s testimony is deemed tutored if it is altered, influenced, or otherwise made up at the request of another person. A witness’s testimony may exhibit one of two general impacts if they have received tutoring: (i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication.
  11. If it turns out that the child witness’s deposition was based on anything they genuinely saw, it is not sufficient to reject their evidence as tutored just because they were caught repeating parts of what someone had asked them to say.
  12. If the tutored portion of a child witness’s statement can be distinguished from the untutored portion, it can be trusted, even if the untutored or unadulterated portion is what gives the witness confidence.

Analysis by the Court

Since the present case pertained to a situation wherein the respondent had been accused of murdering his wife and cremating her body in a hurried manner, the primary contention before the court was whether the testimony of their 7 year old daughter Rani could be relied upon. Since in the present case the court had rightly observed that the testimony of the child was detailed and consistent with respect to the facts of the case, there was no reason to summarily dismiss it or support any claims for its dismissal based on tutoring of the child.

The court has also noted that the testimony of a child witness assumes great significance when it is backed with circumstantial evidence and corroboration is therefore unnecessary if the statements are found to be credible and consistent. Various High Courts have in the past laid down numerous judgments in reference to credibility of child witnesses and the manner in which their statements may be recorded.

In the case of Ganesh Balai V. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that there is no fixed age to deem a child witness to be competent and children can be a crucial part of evidence especially in cases related to sexual offences against minors. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (2008)[2], the Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge should make the final determination regarding a child witness’s intelligence. The judge can observe the child’s behavior and perform an initial examination to determine the child’s capacity, intelligence, and comprehension of the duty to speak the truth. In another case wherein a child was witness to a murder, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Gupta V. State of Haryana [3](2017) held that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of a child provided it is reliable and admissible.

Conclusion

The present case has settled the law regarding the competence, probative value, eligibility and admissibility of the statements and evidence presented by children in various cases. The court has rightly issued guidelines pertaining to the role of various stakeholders, especially the trial court in bringing forward the reasons for which the evidence furnished by the child witness has been relied upon.

Lastly, the court has also focused on the “reasonable likelihood test” according to which the testimony of the child witness should be judged before any reliance is placed upon it in order to determine the reasonable chances of tutoring the child witness.

[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166265097/

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1678362/

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104547475/

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com