INTRODUCTION

Witnesses are the essential part of any court proceedings and specially, a criminal court proceeding. The testimony given by the witnesses are a crucial part of evidence as it can change a judge view about a crime. A criminal can be proved innocent by the testimony of a witness. A witness is expected to say truth infront of the court. There truth is a crucial information. But in most instances, sometimes the witness could be a child. A child below eighteen years of age is regarded as a child witness. A child or a teenager both are in the immature stage, they take foolish decisions and often fail to realize the given situation. They lie at times, innocently, but yes. They sometimes fail to realize the difference between good or bad, truth or false. They don't know that their words can hold so much impact. They are at their tender age and are fragile. Being a witness sometimes is hard because the defenses often force people out to get the truth from them. They get a little impatient while doing so. Handling a child as a witness is a tough task as kids are fragile and often in fear they get scared and lie. Kids in often do not comprehend the question well and give the wrong answers. It is very hard for the court to identify the truth from a kid. Hence, the court has established some rules which can be determine whether the child is competent enough to testify.

COMPETENCY OF CHILD WITNESS

The first question that arise is what are witnesses? Witnesses are those people who swear under oath to testify in front of a court. The witnesses plays an important role in a case proceedings and judgments. Now according to court who may all testify as a witness in the court? The answer to this is given in section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which deals with who may testify in the court as witness. These essentials under sec 118 of Indian Evidence Act are:-

 A witness needs to be capable of testify;

 They must be able to comprehend the queries posed to them;

He or she may come up with the logical response when such a query is posed to them. Kids under the age of eighteen are known as child witnesses. In India, specifically, there is no legal restrictions on a minimum age for a child to be considered as a competent witness. Any person who is eligible under the above mentioned section is competent enough to become a witness. A child can also become a witness if he is capable enough of testifying and is able to understand the questions posed to them and if he or she is able to come up with a logical response of that question. In where cases court has disregarded child witnesses' evidence on several occasions. The court has the authority to decide whether a child will testify or not. A child is considered to be at very young age, who is sometimes considered as a very sensitive topic. Children or teenage kids can get worked up easily and hurt easily, they change their statement more often according to what they are feeling. Sometimes, they are unable to develop a clear opinion and are too young to understand the issue. Keeping all these things in mind, the court has always taken a measure in legal proceedings. In Nirmal Kumar v. State of U.P. 1992, the Supreme Court decided that a child's testimony must be cautiously tested and that the court must seek some form of corroboration because the practice is more prevalent in practical judgement than in legal procedures. It is very likely that the kid witness' testimony will be used for legal purposes, hence it should only be accepted after deep thought. The youngster may testify to something he hasn't seen due to temptation and fear. The effect of any instruction on the kid witness must be weighed by the court. However, since he is likely to learn due to his tender age, the data should not be discounted.

VOIRE DIRE TEST

A Voire Dire Test is conducted by courts to determine that whether the child is competent enough to be called as witness.

In this test, the court puts certain preliminary questions before the child which have no connection with the case. These questions can be "what is your name? ", "what is your father name" etc. With this test the court determines answer to the following questions:

1. Whether the child understands the difference between truth and falsehood.
2. Whether the child can coherently express their observations.
3. Whether the child comprehends the duty to speak the truth.

The term "voir dire" comes from the Anglo-Norman phrase "Oath to tell the truth." Here, the French word voir (or voire), meaning "that which is true," is employed. The child cannot be further examined if it appears to the court that the child cannot understand simple questions such as the child's name, age, or school. Since an incompetent witness' evidence has no legal weight in a court of law. It is also advisable to use a counsellor or other professional individuals who interact with the youngster in a more structured way so that one could guarantee that the kid's testimony is not fabricated. Since witnesses play an important role in criminal cases, the young witnesses ought to be dealt with in a kind manner. They are handled with due care as they are very fragile at such a young to testify. In a case where a child witness lack maturity to testify in the court but contains extraordinary information that might affect how a judge views a particular crime then such testimony provided by the kid as witness must be considered by courts. Testimony may occasionally be based solely on his imagination. The testimony of the child witness must, therefore, be corroborated but if there is no ornamentation or correction, the court may use the testimony without it being a dent on its credibility. Since they can receive tutoring, the testimony of the child witness needs closer scrutiny. A child's statement should be partially or wholly rejected by the court in case there is some proof in the record that the child has been trained. (Roy, Dr. C. 2018) worked on the Position of Child Witness under Indian Evidence Act, 1872  An Analytical Study. The author in this article wonders that a person who gives evidence in court is termed as witness. Section 118, Indian Evidence Act of 1872, explains the competency of a witness. In that regards, a minor who has enough mental capacity to understand questions and respond thoughtfully can be allowed to testify. There is no minimum age below which they cannot give evidence on the ground that they are not mentally capacitated. A child witness's testimony should be evaluated more cautiously and carefully because they are highly susceptible to what others say to them, making them a soft target for tutoring. The Indian Evidence Act, which explains the competency of a witness, is discussed in this topic.

NEED OF CORROBATIVE EVIDENCE

Corrobative evidence are those facts or information that supports a story that already has evidence.

Usually, courts are cautious in accepting testimony from a single child witness and would usually look for other forms of evidence to support the same. However, in R v. Norbury, Privy Council case, the testimony of a 6-year-old rape victim was accepted. The court ruled that even if a child does not fully understand the purpose of an oath, their testimony may yet be admitted if they would be able to understand their questions and give rational answers. In such case, no further supporting evidence was required. In another case, Tahal singh VS. Punjab (AIR 1979 1347), the supreme court observed In rural India, 13- year-olds are often seen as capable of understanding the significance of an oath and the need to speak the truth, as many work in fields from a young age. In Jarina Khatun v. State of Assam (1992 Cr LJ 733), it was emphasized that the best judge to determine a child's competence is the trial court because it could observe the child's demeanour, record his statement, and evaluate its acceptability in the scrutiny.

The case was that of an accused who had been convicted for raping an 8-year-old girl, and the conviction was based upon the statement of the victim to her mother. The sessions court found the evidence morally convincing but legally insufficient. The High Court found that while normally corroboration was necessary, the statement of the victim was legally admissible as corroboration. Leave to appeal was granted by the High Court, and it came before the Supreme Court. It dealt with two important concerns :

Admissibility of the Statement:

The assistant sessions judge refused to administer oath to the child stating that she may not be able to comprehend the nature of it.

There was no opinion that the child was incapable of testifying.

Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act indicates that unless proved otherwise, a witness is competent. The Court held that omission to administer an oath impacts the credibility of a witness rather than their competency. Ideally, the opinion of the judge on whether or not the child would understand his duty to speak the truth must be stated for credibility purposes. In this case, it meant that the judge had deemed the child satisfied enough that he could continue taking evidence, which was not objected to by the accused at the time.

Need for Corroboration: Section 114 of the IEA generally requires corroboration of a statement. However, the Supreme Court noted that this is not a rigid rule, especially in cases involving young children. The Court highlighted that while corroboration is a matter of caution, judges are not obligated to follow it strictly and must justify when they find it unnecessary. In this case, the Court found it safe to convict without corroboration based on the circumstances.

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction, accepting the admissibility of the child's statement, and clarifying that corroboration was not required in this case.

CONCLUSION

In brief, the testimony of a child witness is an integral part of criminal trials, particularly in cases related to sensitive matters such as sexual offenses.

Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 disqualifies a child witness solely based on the grounds of age, unless it appears to the court that such a child can understand simple questions put to him, and that he can give rational answers. A child witness should be made to understand the significance of speaking truth; but, not having an oath does not invalidate his testimony in the eye of law. It affects only the credibility, not competency. The Voire Dire Test can be very effective in determining the child's ability to be perceived competent as their simple, unrelated questions would determine if the child can differentiate between truth and falsehood, then communicate himself coherently. Courts should avoid dealing with certain children because they are so easily influenced and have to be cautioned that they change statements.

However, corroboration of a child's statement is not always mandatory, as seen in the rulings of the Supreme Court, provided the testimony meets the criteria of reliability and the judge can justify proceeding without additional evidence. In conclusion, while handling child witnesses, it is crucial to balance the protection of the child's well-being with ensuring the integrity of the testimony. The Supreme Court and other judicial precedents have clarified that, while corroborative evidence is a matter of caution, it is not a strict requirement in all cases.

Courts must conduct a careful examination to determine the credibility and reliability of a child's statement, especially when the child has been subjected to thorough questioning and the circumstances of the case support the testimony's admissibility.