The Supreme Court of India recently overturned an acquittal in a crucial murder case, reinstating the conviction of an accused based on the testimony of his seven-year-old daughter. The judgment emphasizes that a child witness is competent to testify, provided they understand the questions and can respond rationally. This ruling reaffirms the legal framework governing child witnesses in India and highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.
Case Background
The case involved the tragic death of Birendra Kumari, allegedly murdered by her husband, Balveer Singh, who later cremated her body secretly. Their seven-year-old daughter, Rani, was the sole eyewitness to the crime.
Initially, the Trial Court found Balveer Singh guilty under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted him, questioning the reliability of Rani's testimony, citing an 18-day delay in recording her statement. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged this acquittal in the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Cancelling Bail: Liberty Must Not Be Lightly Interfered
The Supreme Court, relying heavily on Rani’s testimony, provided a detailed analysis of the law concerning child witnesses under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment summarized the legal principles as follows:
1. Competency of Child Witnesses
"The Evidence Act does not prescribe a minimum age for witnesses. A child witness is competent if they understand the questions and provide rational answers."
Courts must ensure that child witnesses comprehend the duty of speaking the truth.
Their testimony cannot be dismissed solely due to their age.
2. Preliminary Examination by Trial Court
"Before recording a child’s testimony, the Trial Court must conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine their ability to understand questions and respond rationally."
The court should document the child's demeanor, responses, and ability to comprehend the sanctity of giving evidence.
3. Admissibility of a Child's Testimony
"If a child witness is found competent, their testimony is admissible and can form the sole basis for conviction if it is credible."
No requirement for corroboration if the testimony is found trustworthy.
Minor contradictions in a child's testimony should not lead to outright dismissal.
4. Possibility of Tutoring
"Child witnesses are susceptible to influence. Courts must carefully assess whether the testimony is spontaneous or manipulated."
A child’s testimony may be scrutinized if delays in recording raise concerns of tutoring.
However, mere delay does not invalidate the evidence unless clear signs of coaching exist.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict
After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found Rani’s testimony consistent and reliable. Her statements aligned with circumstantial evidence, reinforcing the accused’s guilt. The Court ruled:
"Merely because a child witness repeats certain statements does not render their testimony unreliable, as long as the core facts remain consistent."
The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating Balveer Singh’s conviction.
This landmark ruling clarifies that:
- A child's testimony can be the primary basis for conviction.
- Courts must exercise caution but not dismiss evidence solely due to a witness’s age.
- Delay in recording statements should not automatically lead to an inference of tutoring.
Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH
