Facts
The victim, aged 4 years, visited the shop of the accused to buy some curd. The accused took her inside a room and tried to commit rape her. During the act, the accused was called by another individual and he went outside, and in the meanwhile, the victim tied her pants and escaped and narrated the incident to her mother. An FIR was lodged against the accused, who was then convicted by the trial court. The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that no opportunity was given by the trial Court to cross-examine the victim which resulted in the defeat of the indefeasible right of the accused.
Judgment
The court analysed the value of a child witness. The court held that child witnesses should not be treated with greater circumspection than ordinary witnesses. If the trial court is satisfied with the child victim’s reliability, the appellate court cannot interfere unless there are significant errors in their examination.The court also established the following guidelines with regard to the admissibility of evidence given by a child – (i) If a child is found competent, nothing in the evidence act prevents him from testifying and this evidence can be relied on to convict the accused. (ii) Courts should conduct a thorough exercise on the ability of the child to testify. (iii) Once the child has been adjudged as reliable, his/her testimony commands credibility. (iv) It is desirable that judges and Magistrates should always record their positive opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth otherwise the credibility of the witness would be seriously affected and may become liable to rejection altogether. (v) Corroborative evidence lends additional credibility to the statement of the child and it is prudent to search for such evidence. The court further held that once a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provided that such witness is able to understand the answers thereof. The accused’s conviction was upheld despite the child’s mother turning partially hostile and the father appearing as defence witness, solely on the testimony of the child.