![]() Wahurwagh Vs State of Maharastra reported in 2009 (6) SCALE 627 that mere non compliance of Voir Dire Test would not ipso facto lead to the whole sale rejection of the evidence of child witness when it inspires confidence and trust worthy of the court.ฤก) Ramahwar KalyanSingh Vs State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 Wherein, the Hon'ble Highest court of our country propounded the proposition of law on the testimony of child witness by considering section 4 of the Indian Oaths Act (Act 44 of 1969), according to which, administering oath or affirmation shall not apply to a person of witness under the age of 12 years and as per section 7 of the Act, even an omission to administering Oath or affirmation to an Adult shall not make the evidence of child witness inadmissible. Our Hon'ble Apex Court held in the Judgment namely H.S. ![]() In that test, the judge must ascertain the competency of the child by asking some questions unrelated to the case on hand, before testifying the child witness as a part of trial proceedings. ![]() The test can be called as precursor test which is supposed to be conducted by the trial court to determine the maturity and capability of the child. The concept of Voir dire test derived from Anglo- Norman phrase which refers to "Oath to tell the truth". The Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to render a witness to be competent one. However, section 118 of Evidence Act contemplates that "All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court consider that they are prevented from understanding 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." Neither the substantive law nor procedural law defines the term of child witness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |