By Shweta Jena
The Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment of 2010. It sentenced a man to life imprisonment for murdering his wife and secretly cremating the body after the testimony of their seven-year-old daughter. The court said that the statement of a child cannot be nullified or looked over if they have an understanding of the questions and answer rationally.
“The evidence does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness in his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly,” said the Court. The only defense the Court can take while accepting a child’s evidence is that the witness must be reliable as children often fall prey to tutoring by others.
The apex court warned trial courts to be mindful of child testimonies and ensure that children give their speeches on their own accord and not under the influence or force of external factors. The testimony must be children’s voluntary expression and not from other sway and it must inspire confidence.
The judicial system must rule out the prospect of tutoring because the child witnesses are deemed hazardous since they are readily persuaded, shaped, or molded. The Court must depend on the reassuring evidence of such witness in order to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence if, following a thorough investigation, they discover that the prosecution has not attempted to utilize the kid for any hidden agendas or provided tutoring. It stated that if the accused made no accusations in this regard, it was possible to deduce from his deposition’s contents whether or not the child had received tutoring.
Thus, the Court established a comprehensive process that trial courts must not adhere to when documenting the testimony of minor witnesses, which includes determining the witness’ capacity to testify and making sure no tutoring is done.