NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court held that the only precaution courts must take while considering the testimony of an injured child witness is to ensure that he has not been tutored.
The court further said that the Indian Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum or maximum age to test the competence of a witness.
“Section 118 of the Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum or maximum age to test the competence of a witness. It makes all persons eligible to testify, unless the court finds that a person is prevented from understanding the questions put to him or from giving rational answers by reason of being too young or too old, diseased, whether in mind or body… though, the evidence of a child witness is required to be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection since a child is susceptible to being swayed by what others tell him and may be easy prey to tutoring. The evidence of a child witness must find ‘adequate corroboration’ before it is relied upon,” a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
The high court was hearing appeals filed by convicts against a trial court order that convicted four people and released one in a murder case.
The court further said that if an injury is present, and if it is proved that the assailant inflicted it, the inevitable inference is that he intended to inflict that injury.
