Supreme Court clarifies the competency of child witnesses in murder cases: Ramesh vs. State (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 9, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 678

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a child’s testimony be dismissed simply because they don’t recognize the judge? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal, focusing on the competency of child witnesses. This case examines the circumstances under which a child’s evidence can be deemed admissible in court, particularly in sensitive cases like murder trials. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. with the majority opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The appellant, P. Ramesh, was accused of murdering his wife and was also charged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty. The trial court convicted him on both charges. During the trial, the prosecution sought to present the evidence of the couple’s two children, PW-3 (8 years old) and PW-4 (6 years old), who were potential witnesses to the crime. However, the trial judge deemed them incompetent to testify because they could not identify the judge or the lawyers in the court. The children, however, stated that they were present to give evidence about their mother’s death.

The trial court, despite not recording the children’s testimony, found sufficient evidence to convict the appellant. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, however, overturned this decision, stating that the trial judge’s reasoning for not recording the children’s evidence was flawed. The High Court ordered a remand, directing the trial court to assess the children’s capacity to testify and record their evidence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court, stating that the Trial Court’s reasoning for not recording the evidence of the child witnesses was erroneous. The High Court remanded the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to examine the child witnesses after objectively ascertaining their capacity to depose and to allow the accused to lead evidence in rebuttal.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a woman.
• Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section outlines who is competent to testify. It states that all persons are competent to testify unless the court believes they are prevented from understanding the questions or giving rational answers due to tender age, extreme old age, disease, or any other similar cause. The Explanation to this section clarifies that a lunatic is not incompetent to testify unless their lunacy prevents them from understanding questions and giving rational answers. The court quoted the provision verbatim:
  
  “All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Explanation – A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.”
• Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969: This section requires witnesses to take an oath or affirmation. However, it makes an exception for child witnesses under twelve years of age if the court believes they understand the duty to speak the truth, even if they don’t understand the nature of an oath. The court quoted the provision verbatim:
  
  “Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely: — (a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined, or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence; (b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; and (c) jurors: Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.”
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides for appeals against convictions.
• Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section defines the powers of the Appellate Court while disposing of an appeal against an order of conviction or acquittal.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The incident occurred on January 18, 2014, and the appellant surrendered on January 20, 2014.
• The statements of the child witnesses under Section 164 of the CrPC were recorded belatedly on March 10, 2014, despite 21 statements being recorded between January 19 and 21, 2014.
• The prosecution did not file a revision when the trial judge deemed the child witnesses incompetent on May 19, 2015.
• The delay of over five years since the incident, along with the children being in the custody of their maternal grandmother, would cause serious prejudice to the appellant.
• The High Court should evaluate the appeal based on the existing record, as the chain of circumstances is not complete, and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal based on the principles of circumstantial evidence.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s argument is based on the assumption that the child witnesses’ testimonies would be prejudicial to the appellant.
• The statements of PW-3 and PW-4 were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate.
• The appellant would have the opportunity to cross-examine the child witnesses.
• The High Court’s order should be affirmed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, as the trial court’s reasons for not recording the children’s testimonies were erroneous.
• Excluding the evidence of the child witnesses, who were natural witnesses to the crime, disabled the prosecution from presenting crucial evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in remanding the case back to the Trial Court to record the evidence of the child witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, after the Trial Court had deemed them incompetent to depose.
2. Whether the Trial Court’s reasons for not recording the evidence of the child witnesses were valid under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341:* The Court followed this authority to support the view that a child witness can be a basis for conviction if they are competent and reliable, even without an oath.
• Wheeler v. United States 159 U.S. 523 (1895):* The Court used this authority to emphasize that competency of a child witness depends on their capacity and intelligence, not just their age.
• Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64:* The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the trial judge has the primary responsibility to assess the child’s intelligence and understanding of the oath.
• Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 12 SCC 565:* The Court referred to this case as it had relied upon the case of Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64.
• Mohd Hussain v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2012) 9 SCC 408:* The Court cited this case to highlight that the power to order a retrial should be exercised exceptionally and not routinely.
• Ajay Kumar Ghoshal v. State of Bihar (2017) 12 SCC 699:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that retrial is warranted only in exceptional cases where there has been a failure of justice.
• Atma Ram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan 2019 SCC OnLine SC 523:* The Court relied on this case to support the High Court’s decision to order the re-recording of statements of witnesses as a valid exercise of appellate power.
• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat (2018) 11 SCC 163:* The Court referred to this case to ensure that the evidence of child witnesses is recorded in a child-friendly environment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that the trial judge’s approach in determining the competency of child witnesses was flawed. The court noted that the trial judge focused solely on the children’s inability to identify the judge and lawyers, rather than their capacity to understand the questions and provide rational answers about the events they witnessed. The Court also considered that the child witnesses were natural witnesses to the crime and that their evidence was crucial for the prosecution. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered before arriving at a decision.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on a mix of factual considerations, such as the circumstances of the case, and legal considerations, such as the interpretation of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the powers of the appellate court under Section 386 of the CrPC.

Key Takeaways

• Competency of Child Witnesses: A child’s competency to testify depends on their ability to understand questions and give rational answers, not on their ability to identify court personnel.
• Trial Court’s Duty: The trial court must assess a child’s capacity to understand the purpose of their presence in court and their ability to provide rational answers.
• Importance of Child Testimony: Child witnesses, especially in cases of violence, are often natural witnesses whose evidence is crucial.
• Appellate Court’s Power: The appellate court has the power to order a retrial or re-recording of evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
• Child-Friendly Environment: Evidence of child witnesses should be recorded in a child-friendly environment.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to the Trial Court to:

• Assess the capacity of the child witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) objectively.
• Record their evidence if they are found competent to testify.
• Provide an opportunity to the accused to offer evidence in rebuttal.
• Ensure that the evidence of the child witnesses is recorded in a child-friendly environment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the competency of a child witness is determined by their ability to understand questions and give rational answers, not by their ability to identify court personnel. This clarifies the application of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the context of child witnesses and reinforces the need for a holistic assessment of a child’s capacity to testify. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather clarifies its application in cases involving child witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in P. Ramesh vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police reinforces the importance of ensuring that child witnesses are not unjustly excluded from testifying in court. The Court clarified that the key factor in determining a child’s competency is their ability to understand questions and provide rational answers, not their recognition of court personnel. This ruling ensures that the voices of child witnesses are heard and that justice is served, while also emphasizing the need for a child-friendly approach in legal proceedings.