Child Witness

When a child engages with the judicial system, the response should be supportive, collaborative and aligned with a child-right-driven approach

Involvement with legal system can take various forms, such as being party in legal case, acting as a witness, undergoing legal proceedings or seeking legal remedies

This approach is based on acknowledging children as rights holders and vulnerable individuals, emphasizing crucial need to establish an environment that prioritizes their well-being and protection throughout legal processes.

Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected because of his age factor rather the test of competency of a witness is his capacity to understand the questions and to give rational answers.

While adjudging the competency to testify in terms of Art. 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a distinction is to be drawn between a child witness and a child victim

So far as, a child who witnessed a crime committed against some other person, his power to observe the incident and ability to transform it in deposition called for a vigilant judicial observance

Such child witness could on occasions be influenced through tutoring for narrating a false account of the incident, thus his evidence was to be subjected to a strict scrutiny of appraisal

On the other hand, a child who himself fell victim to a crime more so of sexual assault and successfully narrated his sufferings, beside competently standing the test of cross-examination by responding rationally to the questions put to him, his deposition was to be generally accepted

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused without any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Evidence of a child witness is also admissible unless the Court considers that a witness is prevented from understanding the questions put to him or from giving rational answers

Trial Court has to determine as to whether or not a witness is prevented from understanding the questions put to him because of his tender age.

Child witness is not barred from entering the witness box and it is the satisfaction of the Trial Court, which is of crucial importance

Child who also happened to be a victim of an offence is competent to testify as a witness, and the deposition would be worthy of reliance provided the court is satisfied that he or she, as the case may be, is intelligent and understand the significance of entering the witness box.

Conviction could be handed down placing reliance on the sole testimony of a child witness, but as a rule of prudence, it is generally preferred that it should be corroborated by some other evidence so as to ensure the safe administration of justice.

Element of coaching might not involve as children were most untrustworthy class of witnesses being of tender age.

In the present case, the child witness who had been produced by the prosecution was of the age of 12/13 years, student of 4th class, and he was not of the age who could not understand the questions put to him

After perusal of the evidence of said witness, he was found to be an intelligent witness because he had given rational and coherent answers to the questions put to him by the defence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Defence had objected that victim was a child witness and she could have been tutored or influenced by elders, hence it would not be safe to rely on her testimony as child witness

Validity

Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 contemplated that all persons were competent to testify unless the court considered that they were prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions by tender or extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same nature

Child witness, in circumstances, was not barred from entering the witness box

Satisfaction of the trial court was of crucial importance in such cases

Child who also happened to be a victim of an offence was competent to testify as a witness and such deposition would be worthy of reliance provided the court was satisfied that he or she, as the case may be, was intelligent and understanding the significance of entering the witness box.

Conviction could be handed down placing reliance on the sole testimony of a child witness but as a rule of prudence it was generally preferred that it should be corroborated by some other evidence so as to ensure the safe administration of justice.

Great care and caution was to be taken while examining a child witness.

Child can be a good witness provided he is capable of understanding and able to give rational answers to questions put to him.

Accused was directly and singularly charged for murder of the deceased and the story of the complainant did appeal to reason

Prosecution witness, who was brother of the deceased, and was a child of age of 7/8 at the time of occurrence, was a straightforward witness, and he was not expected to manipulate or concoct any event seen by him; what he had seen, he narrated before his father/the complainant; child, therefore, was a natural witness

Complainant had not any mala fide intention to falsely implicate accused as no evidence had been brought on record by the defence to prove previous motive of the complainant

Both prosecution witnesses had been subjected to lengthy and comb searching examination by the defence, but nothing fruitful could be extracted from them

Said witnesses stood firm to their stance

Ocular account furnished by prosecution witness had been substantiated and corroborated by circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of blood stained earth from the place of incident, blood-stained last worn clothes, as well as autopsy report of the deceased

Occurrence had taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution witness

Minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witness, would not be fatal for the prosecution case, because accused who remained absconded for long period of ten years, was examined after that long period

Testimony of child witness, which was straightforward, reliable and confidence inspiring, could not be thrown away, merely on the ground that he was solitary witness of the incident

When the law permitted a fact to be proved through the statement of a single witness, there was no reason or logic to call for more witnesses than one

Conviction could be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of a witness, if it was found worth credence, dependable and consistent

Both the prosecution witnesses, though were related to the deceased, but their testimony could not be discarded for the sole reason of their relationship with the deceased

Prosecution had fully established the guilt of accused

No infirmity, illegality or irregularity or any misreading or non-reading of evidence was noticed in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, which could call for interference of High Court in its appellate jurisdiction

Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused, was maintained, in circumstances.

No hard and fast rule could be made to ascertain that child was a competent witness or not, but it depended on facts and circumstances of each case

Court had to accept such evidence with great care and caution, because a child of tender age was a dangerous witness; who could easily repeat glibly a story put into his/her mind; and would not possess discretion to distinguish between what he/she had seen and what he/she had heard

Court as a matter of prudence, was generally chary of putting absolute reliance on evidence of child witness; and look for corroboration of same from other circumstances in the case

Evidence of a child witness, before being acted upon, should be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny, and should not be relied upon, until and unless, it was corroborated by some strong circumstances in the case, because children, were most untrustworthy class of witnesses, because of their tender age, they often mistake dreams of reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge, what they heard from others; and was greatly influenced by fear of punishment, by hope of reward and desire of notoriety.

Evidence of a child witness is a delicate matter and normally it is not safe to rely upon it unless corroborated as rule of prudence

Great care is to be taken that in the evidence of child element of coaching is not involved

Chidren are the most untrust worthy class of witnesses, because when in tender age they often mistake dreams for reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others and are greatly influenced by fear of punishment, by hope of reward and the desire of notoriety

Rule of prudence requires that the testimony of child witness should not be relied upon unless it is corroborated by some evidence on the record.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court under S.302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death, which sentence was maintained by High Court

Plea raised by accused was that his conviction was based upon sole testimony of child witness, which was neither corroborated by medical evidence nor with weapon of offence

Validity

Though in principle, conviction could be based upon testimony of an intelligent and understanding child witness but Courts had generally preferred to adopt settled principle of prudence and rule of care attached to sole testimony of child witness despite child's intelligent deposition

No evidence was available on record to corroborate testimony of child witness as medical evidence and recovery of weapon did not furnish required support

Medical evidence pertained to four injuries which were ante-mortem and were due to blunt weapon

Doctor stated during evidence that skull of deceased had been cut but it was not a sharp weapon; in the same breath she self destructively admitted that the injury could be from sharp-edged 'weapon

Such evidence of doctor cast serious doubt on prosecution story based on sole statement of child witness that deceased was struck by blunt weapon i.e. Ghotna and not by sharp-edged weapon

Weapon of offence was recovered after over 2-1/2 years and the same was neither reported to be blood-stained nor was it sent for chemical examination

Motive was neither alleged nor proved, though it might be insignificant yet it could be a clue to the mind of accused

Prosecution was not able to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

No doubt convictions could be recorded/based on the testimony of a child witness, however, the same had to be consistently credible, confidence-inspiring and straightforward and be duly corroborated by other circumstantial and medical evidence

Evidence of a child witness, in circumstances would require corroboration and could not in isolation be basis of any conviction.

Interested witness was that who had motive to falsely implicate someone as accused and mere relationship with the deceased was not sufficient to declare a person to be interested witness.

S. 118-Criminal trial-Child witness-Whether child witness can understand questions and answer in rational manner-Immaterial Proposition that in no case should evidence of child witness be believed-Cannot be laid down as a general rule of universal application-Each case depends upon its own particular facts and circumstances-Evidence of child witness before being acted upon should however be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny-Mere fact of evidence of only eye-witness of a crime being of a child of 10 years of age-No ground for not relying upon same especially when evidence given without hesitation, without slightest suggestion of tutoring and corroborated in respect of narration of facts or child's subsequent conduct immediately afterwards-Real tests : consistence of story with itself, standing tests of cross-examination and fitness with evidence and circumstances of case.-[Witness].

Child witness -Corroboration-Father of child witness being inimical to accused appellant possible danger of witness being tutored by her father-Statements of witness about manner of occurrence before her meeting with her father in such eventuality very relevant-Prosecution witness S rushing to scene of occurrence and informed by child witness of her mother having been fired at with a sten-gun and killed by accused-Prosecution witness A. S. I. preparing site plan at instance of child witness-Neither of such two witnesses cross-examined on their statements-Father of child witness having not been alleged to have reached place of occurrence before arrival of such two prosecution witnesses, evidence of such witnesses, held, furnished strong corroboration of evidence of child witness in Sessions Court.-[Witness-Evidence].

Child-witness-Statement amply corroborated by other witnesses-Testimony relied upon for sustaining conviction under S. 302, P. P. C.-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

S. 118-Witness-Childwitness-Girls aged 8 and 9 years of mature understanding, capable of giving a picture of occurrence and standing test of cross-examination like adult persons-Such witnesses cannot be said to be child-witnesses-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.