New Delhi, Feb 24 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday said a child witness was a "competent witness" and their evidence couldn't be rejected outrightly.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the Evidence Act did not prescribe any minimum age for a witness and testimony of a child witness, who was found to be competent to depose, would be admissible in evidence.

Also Read | Underage Driving Claims Life in Kancheepuram: Teenager Trying To Move Minivan Parked Outside House Accidentally Mows Down Woman in Tamil Nadu, His Father Arrested.

In the present case involving the murder of a woman by her husband, the bench said there was nothing on record to indicate that the victim's daughter was a tutored witness.

"Cases are frequently coming before the courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife," the court said.

Also Read | Makeup Training for Male Cadets in Japan: Japanese Police Academy Introduces Makeup Application for Grooming and Confidence.

Such crimes were generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence, it added.

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

"The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence cannot be rejected outrightly," the bench said.

The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal by Madhya Pradesh challenging a June 2010 judgement of the high court.

The high court had acquitted a man accused of murdering a woman in 2003.

The verdict held though the victim's daughter, who was seven at the time of incident, was found to be competent to depose, her testimony appeared to be "very shaky" particularly given a 18-day delay in recording her statement with the police.

The apex court observed the evidence of a child witness for all purposes was deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness as long as the minor was found to be competent.

"The only precaution which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring," it said.

The court, however, said in no manner it meant their evidence was to be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy.

"Rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection," the court added.

While appreciating testimony of a child witness, the bench said, courts were required to assess whether their evidence was voluntary, and inspired confidence, or made under someone else's influence.

The bench said before such an evidence was recorded, the trial court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the witness understood the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state the reason behind it.

It said the questions put to the child in the course of preliminary examination and the demeanour and ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the trial court.

"The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose, i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence," the bench said.

It said there was no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it could be considered.

"A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction," it added.

The court went on to note if the child's evidence explained the relevant events of a crime without improvements or embellishments, then corroboration wasn't required.

"There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case," it added.

If courts after a careful scrutiny found there was neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, they must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court said.

The top court said part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, could be relied upon if the tutored part could be separated from the untutored part, given the former inspired confidence.

The top court allowed the appeal and set aside the high court's judgement.

It restored the trial court's order which convicted the man and sentenced him to life term.

The bench directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the sentence.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)