Judgement Briefs

Evidence Law

Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat

AIR 2004 SC 23; (2004) 1 SCC 64

Citation
AIR 2004 SC 23; (2004) 1 SCC 64
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
29 October 2003
Bench
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat JJ.

Facts

  • Two elderly persons were assaulted with a wooden stick.
  • Both victims suffered fatal injuries.
  • Zaveriben, a young child, witnessed the attack.
  • She informed her father that Ratansinh Nayak had assaulted the victims.
  • The next morning:
  • one victim was found dead;
  • the other was found in a dying condition.
  • Zaveriben also told another child about what she had seen.
  • At the time of trial, she was approximately ten years old.
  • The trial court questioned her before recording her testimony.
  • The judge sought to determine whether she:
  • understood the questions;
  • could give rational answers;
  • appreciated the duty to tell the truth.
  • She identified Ratansinh and described the assault.
  • Her account was supported by:
  • recovery of the wooden weapon;
  • forensic evidence relating to blood on the weapon.
  • Ratansinh argued that:
  • child witnesses are easily tutored;
  • Zaveriben’s father was interested in the prosecution;
  • one answer suggested that she had been taught what to say;
  • her evidence required independent corroboration.

Issue

  • Whether tender age made Zaveriben legally incompetent.
  • What test determines competency under Section 118.
  • Whether her testimony showed tutoring.
  • Whether a child’s testimony could independently sustain conviction.

Rule

  • Section 118 of the Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for competency.
  • Every person is competent unless unable to:
  • understand the questions;
  • give rational answers.
  • The trial judge must assess:
  • intelligence;
  • comprehension;
  • ability to distinguish truth from falsehood;
  • capacity to narrate the event.
  • A child’s testimony is not rejected merely because of age.
  • It must, however, be scrutinised carefully because children may be:
  • suggestible;
  • influenced;
  • tutored.
  • If the child’s evidence is:
  • natural;
  • consistent;
  • reliable;
  • free from tutoring, it may form the sole basis of conviction.
  • Corroboration is a rule of prudence in doubtful cases, not an absolute legal requirement.

Application

  • The trial judge personally tested Zaveriben’s competency before recording her substantive evidence.
  • Her answers showed that she:
  • understood ordinary questions;
  • remembered the occurrence;
  • could give rational responses.
  • The Supreme Court considered her entire testimony instead of isolating one sentence.
  • The alleged admission of tutoring was taken out of context.
  • A child may be instructed:
  • to attend court;
  • to speak clearly;
  • to answer questions, without being taught a false factual version.
  • Zaveriben consistently described:
  • the identity of the accused;
  • the wooden stick;
  • the two victims;
  • the manner of assault.
  • She disclosed the occurrence at the earliest available opportunity.
  • This prompt statement significantly reduced the possibility of later tutoring.
  • Her use of family-style expressions such as grandfather or uncle reflected ordinary respectful village language.
  • It did not prove that her father had manipulated her evidence.
  • She had no persuasive reason to falsely implicate Ratansinh.
  • The recovery of the weapon and the forensic findings supplied additional assurance.
  • The Court explained that corroboration cannot make a fundamentally unreliable witness reliable.
  • The proper sequence is:
  • first decide whether the child is competent and truthful;
  • then examine whether surrounding evidence adds confidence.
  • Zaveriben’s testimony passed the first and most important test.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court held that Zaveriben was a competent and reliable witness.
  • Her testimony did not show material tutoring.
  • A truthful child witness may independently prove an offence despite tender age.
  • The recovery and forensic evidence further supported her account.
  • Ratansinh’s conviction and sentence were upheld.