Child Witness Cannot Be Treated as a Routine Witness: Supreme Court Criticises Trial Court for Recording Minor’s Testimony Without Competency Assessment

“The Learned Judge Administered Oath Without Satisfying Himself About the Minor’s Capacity to Depose”: Supreme Court Faults Trial in Murder Case for Violating Section 118 of Evidence Act. In a powerful reaffirmation of judicial standards governing testimony from minors, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a trial court’s failure to conduct a preliminary assessment of a child’s competence to testify under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act fatally undermines the credibility of such testimony. This principle formed a critical part of the judgment where the Court upheld the acquittal of a man previously convicted for burning his wife and three daughters to death.
The Court, speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, held that minor witnesses cannot be examined without first determining their intellectual capacity and understanding of the proceedings, especially when their testimony is central to the prosecution’s case.
“A Child Becomes Incompetent Only If Unable to Understand and Respond Coherently”
The Court examined the deposition of PW-5, a 15-year-old boy and the surviving son of the deceased Amina, who had allegedly witnessed the incident. While he deposed that his father and other relatives dragged his mother and sisters and set them ablaze, the trial court failed to verify whether the child understood the oath or the proceedings.
Citing its earlier decision in P. Ramesh v. State [(2019) 20 SCC 593], the Court noted: “The Judge has to make a proper preliminary examination of the minor by putting appropriate questions… If the child understands the questions and gives rational answers, it can be taken that he is competent.”
However, in this case: “The learned Judge straightaway administered oath to PW-5 and recorded his deposition without satisfying himself about the competence of the minor to depose. This raises a question mark on the testimony of PW-5, especially when a minor witness can be easily tutored.”
Material Contradictions in Minor’s Testimony Undermine Reliability
The Court further highlighted that major contradictions were brought on record during cross-examination. In his earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC, the boy had said: “I do not know how the fire started… While trying to put out the fire, my father and others also suffered burns.”
But during the trial, he testified that his father and relatives deliberately set his mother and sisters on fire using kerosene and a matchstick. The contradiction between these versions, coupled with procedural lapses, led the Court to conclude: “In view of what we have discussed above, it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence.”

Supreme Court Cautions Against Overreliance on Unverified Child Testimony Reinforcing the principle that child witnesses require special judicial caution, the bench noted that no matter how emotionally compelling the narrative, procedural safeguards are indispensable.
In Pradeep v. State of Haryana [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 777], the Court had already emphasized: “Corroboration of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution… A child of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring… Courts must scrutinize such evidence with care and caution.”
In the present case, the apex court found that the trial judge had not only failed to conduct this scrutiny but had also made no attempt to assess the child’s ability to testify at all.
Broader Implications for Trial Courts: A Duty to Safeguard Process
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a strong reminder to trial courts that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed, even in heinous cases. The lack of due diligence while recording the testimony of PW-5, a minor, violated both evidentiary law and the broader principles of fair trial.
“It is not just the content of a child’s testimony but the judicial process by which it is recorded that determines its admissibility and credibility,” the Court implied.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, citing that procedural and evidentiary lapses, including the incompetent recording of a minor’s testimony, made it impossible to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Date of Decision: 22 April 2025