Trial Court Cannot Record Mechanical Satisfaction on Child Witness Competency: Patna High Court Flags Serious Procedural Lapse

“Credibility of Witnesses Has To Be Measured With Same Yardstick… Rule Is One and Only One – Whether Depositions Are Honest and True”, In a crucial aspect of its acquittal judgment in the alleged rape and murder of two minor girls, the Patna High Court has underscored that recording a mere “general satisfaction” about the competency of child witnesses is legally insufficient and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Praveen Kumar set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 363 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, highlighting serious procedural and evidentiary lapses.

While the earlier focus was on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements, the Court also made significant observations on the manner in which the testimony of child witnesses was handled by the trial court.

Conviction Based Primarily on Three Child Witnesses

The prosecution case largely hinged on the statements of three girl child witnesses (PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4), who were allegedly playing with the two victims at the time of the incident and claimed to have seen the accused taking them away.

The trial court had convicted the appellant relying heavily on these testimonies, observing that the girls had identified the accused as the person who took the victims away.

However, the High Court found that the very foundation of reliance on these witnesses was legally fragile.

Mechanical Satisfaction on Competency Held Inadequate

The High Court noted that although the trial court had recorded that the child witnesses were “competent to depose,” it failed to record the preliminary questions put to them to test their understanding and ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.

In respect of PW-2 and PW-3, the Court observed that only a general statement was made that upon asking certain general questions, the witness appeared competent.

The Bench implicitly disapproved this practice, holding that such mechanical recording does not satisfy the legal requirement of testing a child witness’s capacity.

The Court found that one witness did not even know her date of birth or the year of admission to school, and admitted in cross-examination that her bhabhi had told her what to depose in court.

The Bench concluded that the witness appeared to be “a tutored witness.”

Failure to Record Statements Under Section 164 CrPC

The Court also noted that the statements of these crucial child witnesses were never recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, despite the case involving grave offences under IPC and POCSO.

The absence of judicially recorded statements became significant because:

The child witnesses did not disclose the name of the accused at the earliest opportunity.
They allegedly knew him as a co-villager but failed to name him in the FIR.
Their statements during trial materially contradicted each other.

The Court observed that even after recovery of the dead body, the name and identity of the accused were not known to the prosecution.

Contradictions and Improbabilities in Testimony

The Bench carefully compared the depositions of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and found that each gave a different account of the manner of occurrence.

One claimed to have followed the accused up to another village.
Another stated she had not seen anything from her own eyes.
A third introduced a different narrative involving pulling of the girls.

The Court found it “highly improbable that one person can alone take away two girls by pulling them away” in broad daylight without resistance or alarm.

These inconsistencies, coupled with absence of early disclosure of identity, seriously undermined the prosecution case.

Emotional Context Cannot Dilute Legal Standards

In a powerful reiteration of criminal law principles, the Court quoted from Dilavar Hussain v. State of Gujarat:

“Sentiments or emotions, howsoever strong, are neither relevant nor have any place in a court of law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain…”

The Bench emphasized that credibility of witnesses must be assessed uniformly:

“Credibility of witnesses has to be measured with same yardstick… Rule is one and only one namely, whether depositions are honest and true.”

Thus, even in a case involving minor victims and grave allegations, evidentiary standards cannot be relaxed.

Safeguard Against Blind Reliance on Child Testimony

While the Court did not lay down new law, it reaffirmed a crucial procedural safeguard: trial courts must:

Carefully test the competency of child witnesses on record,
Ensure their statements are free from tutoring or influence, and
Scrutinize inconsistencies with greater caution where the entire case hinges on such testimony.

The High Court’s reasoning makes it clear that failure to properly assess child witness reliability can fatally weaken the prosecution case.

Finding that the child witness testimonies were inconsistent, uncorroborated, and procedurally mishandled, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

This dimension of the judgment serves as a reminder that while child witnesses are competent under law, their testimony must pass strict judicial scrutiny. A mechanical endorsement of competency, without recording preliminary assessment and without ensuring procedural safeguards like Section 164 CrPC statements, can render the entire prosecution vulnerable.

The Patna High Court’s ruling reinforces that in criminal law, proof must be rigorous, consistent and legally admissible — regardless of the emotional weight of the case.

Date of Decision: 19 February 2026