Gopi@Kala v. State Of Punjab

  


 

 





 



























 !
"#
$!%&'&"(
) )


"*&
+
,- )))! & &"(!.

/!.'0'

  !
"#
0(12
























))) !'*"($!(  3
45
3 )

  

 


 



 

 
 
  !!!!

  

 6
)
7 58 "

# 





 
 "$ &%"'

(



) 
 

*+
,
$"
 %$ %$ &%"'


'-'
'..

 
+/


'
$
-

 

/ 
 0 
1

&%"&
2 
3 45






6 (
 



 

 ##!(%!

!( !(%!


$

 1


 


 
"%
(

 


"%%%%78

 
  
 


 

"

( &

9(
 


 

%'

%$ &%"'
 8 
 
rehri 
 

 

 
6
6



# 
:
 

;
(

(


jhuggi,  



 

#
6
: 
 

 
6 
 

(

  
 

 

%$ %$ &%"'

<
 

 

 

 
6
 

 

'

#  
0 
;
6




6 
  



(







  

 


/ 

 
 

 
 "$ &%"'


(
 
 
 


 


 
 
/ $


 

 


 
6
 

 
 




 

 
 
:


 
0 (
 






<6
 8
 


(
="8 >   

 

 



6






6 
 
 
 


 

+

 0 
="8
>   
(

 
6
 



 


 

 
=8&


 
6
6 

(

 
# 





 
 

6



(
 
 



 


"-$
/  / 
=&8 

 



:6



6 

 

 (


 
*+

;


 
 



 
 

 ='8 









6 

;
(

 6

# 

(




 


 ( 6




='8 




(



 


'"'
/  /
(
=;8+
1


(
 6

  jhuggi
6 


:

















-

 contra 

 



 


/


(



 


 
6




 (

?








 



  
6


(
 / .

<

 

 


  


 

6
 



 

6
;

(


 
 

 


 

&@

 
6








 
+
 

( 

=&8 


 
80 
  


 (
= 
="8>   

  


0 
 

 
 

 (


 
 
 
 
+
6

 






 

6  :



 

: 

 

 
 

  

6

 



 
( 
 

 

 
6
+


6
 







(  




(

 
6

6
) 



   


     


 !

, :
  
) 
>

(

 
6
 "6. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that 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 these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease , whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J. in " 

# 
$ % #
%!

The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. [See
 &  & 


  $ 

'' ( 

 )* 


 

]

7. In +'( 
  


  $

!

''

 (   *,

%
!- . it was held as follows : (SCC p.

343, para 5):

"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."

*  




 

 


 



&@

 1



 




(
:6
 



 
 


 
 ( 6
 




 
 

@

# 

6

 
 

 



  

 



 

"$ &%"'

(


 ) 
 


 7  





  ) ) Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No