DEEPAK V.
STATE OF HARYANA
ISSUE- CAN SOMEBODY BE CONVICTED BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF A CHILD OF A
TENDER AGE?
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that child witness’ testimony must be
scrutinised to ensure that it was not given under duess or undue influence and that it
must also corroborate other evidence.1 Reiterating the above-mentioned point, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that a child’s evidence should be scrutinised
carefully and that the court should seek some form of corroboration because
corroboration is more of a norm of practical judgement than of law. 2 There is no legal
bar to conviction based on the testimony of a child witness if the recorded evidence is
found to be true and trustworthy.3
2. While dealing with the issue that whether evidence recorded by a child witness is
credible or not, the Hon’ble court has held that the common sense and progress of a
witness at the age of 13 may be equivalent to that of a perfectly rational person. 4 The
Court concluded that in an agrarian economy such as India, a 13-year-old child cannot
be considered immature, at such an age that children begin working in various fields,
farms and in the informal sector.5 The court should put simple, straightforward
questions to the child to test competence and record its opinion on whether the child
understands the duty of truthfulness.6
3. The court emphasized that the evidence of a child witness should not be rejected
outright but must be examined closely for reliability and quality before a conviction
can be based on it.7 Moreover, The SC upheld the conviction based solely on the
testimony of the 12-year-old son who witnessed his father's murder, finding his
testimony reliable and admissible.8 Furthermore, The Privy Council admitted the
testimony of a 6-year-old victim of rape, observing that if the child can understand
questions and give rational answers, corroboration is not essential.9.
4. Moreover, The SC stated that the possibility of tutoring cannot be the sole ground to
conclude that the child witness was indeed tutored. The court must examine the
evidence for any traces of tutoring.10 The Supreme Court observed that while child
witnesses are susceptible to tutoring, if the court finds an "impress of truth" after
careful scrutiny, there is no legal bar to relying on their testimony.11
1
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Ors v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 12 SCC 565.
2
Nirmal Kumar v. State of UP, 2002
3
Supra Note 1.
4
Tehal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1978.
5
Ibid.
6
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1952.
7
State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji, 2009.
8
Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2017
9
R. v. Norbury, 1977
10
Mangoo v. State of MP, 1995.
11
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra, 2008.
