LexP RAMESH versus STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
P RAMESH
v.
STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2019)
JULY 09, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.118 – Competency of child witness –
Appellant was tried for the murder of his wife – Convicted by the
Sessions Judge for offences u/ss.302, 498A – During the course of
the trial, the prosecution sought to adduce the evidence of PW-3
and PW-4, the children of the appellant and the deceased – When
their evidence was to be recorded, PW-3 was eight-years-old while
PW-4 was six-years-old – Trial judge posed certain initial queries
to them for assessing whether they were capable of deposing in
evidence and concluded that their testimony could not be recorded
as they were not competent witnesses – High Court set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial
Court with a direction to examine PW-3 and PW-4 after objectively
ascertaining their capacity to depose – On appeal, held: Question
which weighed with the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that
PW-3 and PW-4 were incapable of deposing was whether the children
knew the person they were standing before – To these questions,
PW-3 and PW-4 stated that they were unaware of that person –
Trial judge, purely on this basis, found that the testimonies of the
child witnesses would be unacceptable on the ground that the
witnesses did not know the judge and the lawyers – Reason which
weighed with the trial judge in preventing the evidence of PW-3
and PW-4 from being recorded was manifestly erroneous and would
result in a miscarriage of justice – Significantly, both PW-3 and
PW-4 were aware of the reason for their presence in the court – A
child of tender age can be allowed to testify if she/he has the
intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational
answers thereto – A child becomes incompetent only in case the
court considers that the child was unable to understand the questions
and answer them in a coherent and comprehensible manner –If the
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 875
875
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
child understands the questions put to her/him and gives rational
answers to those questions, it can be taken that she/he is a competent
witness to be examined – Grounds which weighed with the trial
judge were erroneous – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 498A – Oaths
Act, 1969 – s.4.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Appellate
jurisdiction – Power of High Court – Discussed.
The Appellant was tried for the murder of his wife. He was
convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302,
498A, IPC. During the course of the trial, the prosecution sought
to adduce the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the children of the
appellant and the deceased. When their evidence was to be
recorded, PW-3 was eight-years-old while PW-4 was six-years-
old. Trial judge posed certain initial queries to both of them to
assess whether they were capable of deposing in evidence and
concluded that their testimony could not be recorded as they
were not competent witnesses. The High Court set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the case to the Trial
Court with a direction to examine PW-3 and PW-4. Hence, the
present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The question which weighed with the Trial Court
in coming to the conclusion that both of them were incapable of
deposing was whether the children knew the person they were
standing before. To these questions, PW-3 and PW-4 stated that
they were unaware of that person. The trial judge, purely on this
basis, found that the testimonies of the child witnesses would be
unacceptable on the ground that the witnesses did not know the
judge and the lawyers. The reason which weighed with the trial
judge in preventing the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 from being
recorded was manifestly erroneous and would result in a
miscarriage of justice. Significantly, both PW-3 and PW-4 were
aware of the reason for their presence in the court. They stated
before the trial judge that they were in court to tender evidence
in regard to the circumstances pertaining to the death of their
mother. What the trial judge was required to determine was
whether the children were in a fit and competent state of mind to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
depose and were able to understand the purpose for being present
on the occasion. Prior to the recording of evidence of a child
witness, the TrialExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.