সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Child Witness
Witness-A boy of 5 years old
A starving youth was given shelter by a kindly couple. The reward of that kindness is the murder of the woman and her child. In the case the only witness was a child of 5 years whose mother and also younger brother were murdered. He was also injured. The accused was the house-servant of young age. The Supreme Court observed that "the basic evidence in the case is of a child of five who answers many vital questions with a nod of the head, one way or the other. A witness, who by reason of his imonatur understanding was not administered oath and who was privileged, by reason of his years, not to make his answer in an intelligible and coherent manner is unsafe to be trusted wholesale. The Supreme Court further observed that children, in the first place, mix up what they see with what they like to imagine to have seen and besides a little tutoring is inevitable in their case in order to lend coherence and consistency to their disjointed thoughts which tend to stray. The extreme sentence cannot seek its main support from evidence of this kind which, even if true, is not safe enough to act upon for putting out a life. Suresh v. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 1122.
Witness-Young boy. The Supreme Court observed-
The High Court adopted the correct approach in finding that though there were no infirmities in the evidence of the witness as it stood but in view of the fact that he was a young boy it would be prudent to seek corroboration of the evidence of such witness. B. Bhikha v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1971 SC 1064.
Child witness-Does not know the name of the accused. A child witness, aged 12 years old, came into witness-box, he did not know the name of the accused but in other aspects he corroborated the prosecution story, held by Division Bench his testimony can not be discarded on the point that he did not name the accused.
State of H. P. v. Hiranjit, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 11 HP.
Nature and testimony of child witness. The Lucknow Bench observed- Love, hatred, ambition, hypocrisy, consideration of religion, rank, fortune, caste, creed are as yet unknown to the children. Préconceived notions, nervous irritation or long experience normally do not lead them to form an erroneous impression or to formulate complicated scheme for false implication. These great advantages accompany certain correspondings drawbacks. They use same words as we do but they convey to them a different idea. They perceive things differently. Their conception of magnitude, pace, beauty, distance etc., is not like that of elders. What we ignore they fear or to take delight. Their horizon is limited. They cannot perceive many things which we are able to note easily. They are easily susceptible to tutoring. They may easily borrow from imagination. They may easily believe what they are told. They can be easily tought stories. They live in,a world of make believe so that they often become conceived that they have really seen the imaginary incident which they are taught to relate. As such conviction can be based the statement of a child but the testimony must undergo strict judicial scrutiny- a-cautions approach. Budhram v. State, 1982 All Cri R 528: 1982 All WC 892.
Witness-Child-To be approached with caution. Supreme Court obser- ved that it may be pointed out staightway that he was a child witness aged only 6 years at time when he gave evidence. His evidence is, therefore, to be approached with great caution. He was according to the prosecution the only eye witness to the crime. We have carefully gone through his evidence, but we are constrained to observe that even after making the utmost allowance in his favour in view of the fact he is a child witness. We find it difficult to accept his testimony. There are several contradictions from which his evidence suffers, such as who had which weapon, but it is not merely on account of these contradictions of a minor character that we are inclined to reject his evidence. There are serious infirmities affecting his evidence and of them, the most important is that he is supposed to have given the name of appellant No. 2 as the assailant of the deceased even though he had never seen him before the date of the incident.
C. P. Fernandes v. Union Territory, Goa, AIR 1977 SC 135: 1977 Cri LJ 167: 1977 SC Cri R 111: 1977 SCC (Cri) 154.
Witness-Child-Intelligent-No observed- infirmity. The Supreme Court observed-
No doubt she is a child witness but she is an unusually intelligent child. We do not think her evidence suffers from any infirmity which would entitle us to discredit her. Sadhu Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1978 SC 1506: 1978 All LJ 887: 1978 SC Cri R 403.
Witness-Child-A girl of 10 years old-Infirmities found in her statement -Unsafe to base upon her statement. Supreme Court observed, as regards P.W. Kamala Kumari sole eye-witness aged 9 or 10 years, the High Court has found her statement highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the uncorrobo- rated testimony of this child witness. The High Court has pointed out infirmities in her evidence and given cogent reasons why they think it unsafe to act upon her uncorroborated statement. The circumstances also destroy her testimony and claim of being eye-witness. The Supreme Court has agreed with views of the High Court.
State of Delhi v. Vijay Pal, AIR 1980 SC 1621.
Witness-Boy of rural area of 13 years old having mature understanding- His testimony-The Supreme Court observed-
Hardip Singh is a lad of 13 years. In our country and particularly in the rural areas it is difficult to think of a lad of thirteen years as a child. A vast majority of boys round about that age go to the fields and do men's work. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the oath and the necessity to speek the truth.
A persual of his evidence also shows that he has certainly attained a measure of mature understanding. We do not think we can accept Dr. Chitalcy's argument and proceed on the basis that Hardip Singh is a child witness. Even otherwise having gone through his evidence we are satisfied that his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity.
Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347.
Child and tutored witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the third criticism against the evidence of these two witnesses was that they were tutored witnesses and had given the prosecution version parrot like. Both of them were teensaged children of Teja Singh and their version was so truthful that it was rightly believed by the Courts below. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173.
Child Witness
At this juncture, we are tempted to advert to the case of Suryanarayana vs State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129. In the said case at paragraph-5, it has been stated as under:
"5. Admittedly, Bhavya (PW 2), who at the time of occurrence was about four years of age, is the only solitary eye-witness who was rightly not given the oath. The time and place of the occurrence and the attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility of there being any other person as an eye-witness. The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the Court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. The evidence of PW 2 cannot be discarded only on the ground of her being of tender age. The fact of PW 2 being a child witness would require the Court to scrutinise her evidence with care and caution. If she is shown to have stood the test of cross examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based upon her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal circumstances, would like to mix up what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the Courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the Courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not." [73 DLR (AD) 245]
In the case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs State Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341, it has been held that a child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.[73 DLR (AD) 246]
As regards competency of a child to depose in a case, it is now well settled by the reported cases cited above that a child as young as 5/6 years can depose evidence if she understands the questions and answers in a relevant and rational manner. The age is of no consequence, it is the mental faculties and understanding that matter in such cases. Their evidence, however, has to be scrutinised and caution has to be exercised in each individual case. The Court has to satisfy itself that the evidence of a child is reliable and untainted. Any sign of tutoring will render the evidence questionable if the Court is satisfied, it may convict a person without looking for corroboration of the child's evidence. As regards credibility of child witness, it is now established that all witnesses who testify in Court must be competent or able to testify at trial. In general, a witness is presumed to be competent. This presumption applies to child witnesses also. [73 DLR (AD) 247]
In the case of the State vs Badiuzzaman, 25 DLR 41, it has been held that testing of intelligence of a witness of tender age is not a condition precedent to the reception of his evidence. Preliminary examination of the child witness before receiving his evidence is not imperative. A person who can understand questions and can give rational answers to them is a competent witness to testify in Court. [73 DLR (AD) 247]
In view of the principle laid down in the cases referred to above and the provisions of section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872, there is no room for doubt that testing of intelligence of a witness of a tender age is not a condition precedent to the reception of his evidence. Therefore, preliminary examination of a child witness is not at all necessary. [73 DLR (AD) 247]
Only when it appears to the Court that a person charged with an offence is a child, the Court is required to direct an enquiry to ascertain his age. When an accused is above 16 years of age when charge is framed against him, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Children Act, 1974. Section-66(1) Bimal Das Vs. The State, 14BLD(AD) 218
Child witness
Before examining a child of tender age as a witness, the Court should satisfy itself that the child is intellectually developed enough to comprehend what he has seen and to give an intelligent account of it to the Court. If the child is found sufficiently intel- ligent to understand the questions put to him and he is capable of giving rational answers to those questions, then he is as good as any other adult witness. Fazlul Haq Sikder Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD)364
Child witness
A child witness who is himself a victim of assaults and saw the accused persons killing his father and testifies in the Court to the said effect and remains unshaken in cross- examination, is a competent and reliable witness.
Forkan alias Farhad and another Vs. The State, 15BLD(AD)163
Child witness
A child witness is a competent witness to give evidence in Court provided it appears from its deposition that it could understand the question put and give rational answers thereto. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section-118
The State vs. Ali Hossain, 18BLD (HCD) 655
Ref: AIR 1937 (Patna) 662; 1BLC (1996) 173; 43DLR(AD)(1991)234;AIR 1953 (Patna) 246;-Cited
৫ বছরের শিশুর সাক্ষ্য-একজন অন্নহীন যুবককে একটি সদয় দম্পত্তি আশ্রয় দিয়েছিলো। উক্ত দয়ার পুরস্কার হিসেবে মহিলা ও তার সন্তানকে হত্যা করা হলো। এই মামলায় ৫ বছরের একটি শিশু একমাত্র সাক্ষী যার মা ও ছোট ভাইকে হত্যা করা হয়েছিলো। সেও আহত হয়েছিলো। আসামী যুবক বয়সের গৃহকর্মী ছিলো। সুপ্রীম কোর্ট পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন যে এই মামলার মৌলিক সাক্ষ্য একজন ৫ বছর বয়সী শিশুর যে অনেক গুরুত্বপূর্ণ প্রশ্নের উত্তর মাথা নেড়ে দিয়েছে। একজন সাক্ষী যাকে তার অপরিপক্ক বোধশক্তির জন্য শপথ পাঠ করানো হয় না এবং যাকে তার বয়সের কারণে বোধগম্য ও সুস্পষ্ট পদ্ধতিতে উত্তর না দিতে সুবিধা দেয়া হয় তার সাক্ষ্য গ্রহণ করা সামগ্রিকভাবে নিরাপদ নয়। [সুরেশ বনাম স্টেট অবস ইউপি, এ আই আর ১৯৮১ এসসি ১১২২]
অল্প বয়স্ক তরুনের সাক্ষ্য- সুপ্রীম কোর্ট পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন যে হাইকোর্ট সঠিক সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছেন যে যদিও সাক্ষীর সাক্ষ্যে কোন ধরণের দূর্বলতা পাওয়া যায়নি, কিন্তু সে বয়সে তরুন হওয়ায় তার সাক্ষ্য অন্য সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা সমর্থনের চেষ্টা করা সমীচীন হবে। [বি ভিক্ষা বনাম স্টেট অব গুজরাট, এ আই আর ১৯৭১ এসসি ১০৬৪]
শিশু সাক্ষী-আসামীর নাম না জানা- একজন ১২ বছর বয়সী শিশু সাক্ষী সাক্ষী দিতে সাক্ষীর কাঠগড়ায় আসলো, সে আসামীর নাম জানে না। কিন্তু অন্যদিকে সে বাদীপক্ষের ঘটনাকে সমর্থন করেছিলো। দ্বৈত বেঞ্চ সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছেন যে সে আসামীর নাম বলতে পারেনি বিধায় তার সাক্ষ্য বাতিল করা যায় না। [স্টেট অব এইচপি বনাম হিরনজিত, ১৯৮০ ক্রিএলজে এনওসি ১১ এইচপি]
শিশু সাক্ষী- সুপ্রীম কোর্ট পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন এটা সোজাসুজি বলা যায় যে যখন তিনি সাক্ষ্য দিয়েছিলেন তখন তার বয়স ছিলো ৬ বছর। তিনি একজন শিশু সাক্ষী। তার সাক্ষী খুব সতর্কতার সাথে বিবেচনা করতে হবে। [সি.পি. ফারনানদেস বনাম ইউনিয়ন টেরিটোরি, গোয়া, এআইআর ১৯৭৭ এসসি ১৩৫; ১৯৭৭ ক্রিএলজে ১৬৭]
শিশু সাক্ষী- সন্দেহ নেই সে একজন শিশু সাক্ষী কিন্তু সে অস্বাভাবিকভাবে মেধাবী শিশু। আমরা মনে করি না যে তার সাক্ষ্যে কোন দূর্বলতা আছে যার কারণে আমরা তাকে সন্দেহ করতে পারি। [সাধু সিং বনাম স্টেট অব ইউপি, এ আই আর ১৯৭৮ এসসি ১৫০৬; ১৯৭৮ অল এলজে ৮৮৭]
১০ বছর বয়সী শিশুর সাক্ষী- সুপ্রীম কোর্ট পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন যে, ৯-১০ বছর বয়সী একমাত্র চাক্ষুস সাক্ষী কমলা কুমারীর সাক্ষ্যকে হাইকোর্ট অন্য কোন সাক্ষ্য দ্বারা সমর্থিত না হওয়ায় আপীলকারীকে উক্ত সাক্ষ্যের উপর ভিত্তি করে সাজা দেয়া অনিরাপদ মনে করেছেন। হাইকোর্ট তার সাক্ষ্যে দূর্বলতা পেয়েছেন এবং দৃঢ় কারণ দেখিয়েছেন কেন তার অসমর্থিত সাক্ষ্য অনিরাপদ। পরিস্থিতিও তার এই সাক্ষ্যকে বাতিল করে। হাইকোর্টের মতামতের সাথে সুপ্রীম কোর্ট একমত পোষণ করেন। [স্টেট অবস দিল্লী বনাম বিজয় পাল, এ আই আর ১৯৮০ এস সি ১৬২১]
১৩ বছর বয়সী গ্রাম্য এলাকার একজন বালকের সাক্ষ্য-হার্দিপ সিং ১৩ বছর বয়সী একজন বালক। আমাদের দেশে বিশেষ করে গ্রাম্য এলাকায় একজন ১৩ বছর বয়সী বালককে শিশু হিসেবে বিবেচনা করা কঠিন। এমন বয়সের বিশাল সংখ্যক বালক মাঠে যায় এবং প্রাপ্ত বয়স্ক মানুষের মত কাজ করে। তারা নিশ্চিতভাবে শপথের তাৎপর্য এবং সত্য বলার প্রয়োজনীয়তা বুঝতে সক্ষম। তার সাক্ষ্য পর্যালোচনা করেও এটা বোঝা যায় যে সে পরিপক্ক বোধশক্তি সম্পন্ন। আমরা বলতে পারি না যে হার্দিপ সিং একজন শিশু সাক্ষী। এমনকি তার সাক্ষ্য পড়ে আমরা এ ব্যাপারে সন্তুষ্ট যে তার সাক্ষ্যে কোন ধরণের দূর্বলতা নেই। [তেহাল সিং বনাম স্টেট অব পাঞ্জাব, এ আই আর ১৯৭৯ এস সি ১১৭৩]
শিশু এবং শেখানো সাক্ষী-সুপ্রীম কোর্ট পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন যে, এই সাক্ষীর সাক্ষের বিরুদ্ধে তৃতীয় সমালোচনা হলো যে তারা শেখানো সাক্ষী এবং তারা তোতা পাখির মত বাদীপক্ষে সাক্ষ্য দিয়েছে। তাদের উভয়ই তেজা সিং এর কিশোর বয়স্ক সন্তান এবং তাদের সাক্ষ্য এতটাই সত্য যে নিম্ন আদালত তাদের সাক্ষ্যকে যথাযথভাবে বিশ্বাস করেছেন। [ দালিপ সিং বনাম স্টেট অব পাঞ্জাব, এ আই আর ১৯৭৯ এস সি ১১৭৩]
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
