Can a child be a reliable witness in court? That’s the question the Supreme Court of India recently revisited — and the answer isn’t as simple as a “yes” or “no.”
In a landmark judgment, the apex court clarified the admissibility of child witnesses under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shedding light on when and how a child’s testimony can be trusted in the eyes of the law.
Let’s break it down in a way that makes sense for all of us — not just law students or lawyers.
What is Section 118, Indian Evidence Act?
Section 118 is all about who is considered a “competent witness.” It says:
“All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease… or any other similar cause.”
So yes — even a child can be a witness if the court believes they understand what’s going on.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized on
- A child witness is not automatically disqualified from giving evidence just because of age.
- What matters most is the child’s level of understanding, not how young they are.
- The trial court must carefully examine the child to see if they can understand and respond to questions rationally.
- If the child is found competent, their testimony can form the basis of conviction, even without corroboration — as long as it’s trustworthy.
This isn’t new law, but it reaffirms the principle that children, too, have voices worth hearing — especially in sensitive cases like abuse, assault, or domestic violence where they may be key witnesses.
What About Concerns of Manipulation?
The court was also mindful of the risk of tutoring or influence. That’s why judges are expected to:
- Hold a preliminary examination (in-camera, if needed).
- Ask simple but meaningful questions to check the child’s grasp of truth vs. lies.
- Be alert to signs of pressure, coaching, or confusion.
Why This Matters
Let’s be honest — courts have long been cautious about child witnesses. And rightly so. But this judgment strikes a balance between skepticism and sensitivity. It empowers courts to listen to children without prejudice, while also making sure their testimony is scrutinized fairly.
It’s especially crucial in cases involving sexual offences under the POCSO Act, custody battles, or even domestic violence, where children might be the only direct witnesses.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of Section 118 sends a strong message: Children are not invisible in the justice system.
With the right safeguards, their words can hold weight. The law isn’t just about protecting the innocent — it’s also about hearing them when they speak.
