'Child's testimony cannot be rejected': Supreme Court restores man's conviction for killing wife

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said a child is a competent witness and his or her evidence cannot be rejected outrightly.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's 2010 judgment, which overturned conviction of a man for killing his wife, finding evidence of his seven-year-old daughter as very shaky and not inspiring confidence.

The bench said the Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness.

However, as per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be conducted by the trial court to ascertain if the child is capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the importance of the questions that are being put to him, the court said.

"The only precaution which the court should take is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring. However, this in no manner means that the evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy, rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection," the bench said.

In the case, the court held the child's testimony could not have been discarded solely on the ground that it was recorded in the presence of her maternal uncle, an interested witness, who was at inimical terms with the accused.

The child witness has deposed on the night of July 15, 2003, respondent, her father grabbed the deceased from her neck and hit a blow on her body with a stick causing her to fall. He then exerted pressure on her neck with his feet and as a result the deceased screamed for help. When she ran to help her mother, the accused slapped her and her aunt pulled her away. Afterwards, she found her mother dead and her body being taken by the respondent accused to the barn. She further deposed that early in the morning she found the body of her mother burning.

In the case, the court noted the incident had happened within the four walls, the circumstances, which the respondent accused failed to explain, and subsequently he absconded, pointing towards his guilt.

Restoring conviction and sentence of life term imposed by the trial court upon the respondent accused, the court held the high court committed an egregious error in discarding the testimony of the child witness, as she was examined at length for 1.5 hours and there was nothing to indicate she had been tutored or was deposing falsely. In the entire cross examination, no significant contradictions were found, it pointed out.