Conviction Based on Sole Child Witness Evidence

Source: Telangana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court in the case of Baddam Prashanth Reddy v. State of AP (2025) reiterated that the competence assessment under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of a child victim is indispensable when the conviction of an accused is based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the child. 

What was the Background of Baddam Prashanth Reddy v. State of AP (2025) Case? 

• The victim was a minor child who was being sent to tuition classes. 
• The victim alleged that his tuition teacher (the accused/appellant) forced himself onto him and had non-consensual sex with him. 
• The accused allegedly threatened the victim that he would fail him in his subjects if he told anybody about the incident. 
• The frightened victim confided in his friend about the incident. 
• The friend subsequently informed the victim's mother about what had happened. 
• The victim's father filed a police complaint based on this information. 
• The Special Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 377 of the IPC (unnatural offences). 
• The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of INR 1,000. 
• The accused filed a criminal appeal before the Telangana High Court challenging his conviction. 
• The victim's father did not permit his son to be examined by a medical professional. 
• The trial court convicted the accused based on his potency test and the deposition of the child witness. 
• The trial court did not conduct a preliminary competency assessment of the child witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the trial court relied solely on the testimony of the minor witness and the potency certificate, without conducting a preliminary competency assessment under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
• The Court observed that the trial court failed to record any interaction establishing the child's competency. 
• The Court emphasized that both the victim and his father refused medical examination despite referral by a Government Doctor, resulting in absence of crucial corroborative evidence. 
• The Court held that a duty is cast upon the trial court to first satisfy itself, through a proper preliminary inquiry, that the child understands the questions put to him and can give rational answers. 
• The Court noted that the competency test is mandatory to establish that the child has not been tutored. 
• The Court held that Section 118 of the Evidence Act mandates the Judicial Officer to conduct a preliminary competency assessment of the child's competence, ability to understand questions, and provide coherent and reliable answers. 
• The Court stated that as the conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor whose capacity was not properly tested, it was unsafe to sustain the conviction. 
• The Court concluded that the conviction deserved to be set aside and the accused should be acquitted. 
• The bench set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. 

What is Section 118 of IEA (124 of BSA)? 

About: 

• Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now replaced by Section 124 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) deals with the competency of witnesses. 
• The section provides 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 those questions. 
• The provision applies particularly to child witnesses, persons of unsound mind, or those unable to communicate verbally. 

Key Provisions of Section 118 IEA / Section 124 BSA: 

• All persons are presumed competent to testify as witnesses. 
• A person may be considered incompetent if prevented from understanding questions put to them. 
• A person may be considered incompetent if prevented from giving rational answers to questions. 
• Grounds for incompetency include tender years (young age), extreme old age, disease of body or mind, or any other similar cause. 
• Explanation under Section 118 IEA: A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless prevented by lunacy from understanding questions and giving rational answers. 
• Explanation under Section 124 BSA: A person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify, unless prevented by unsoundness of mind from understanding questions and giving rational answers. 
• The only substantive change from IEA to BSA is terminological: "lunatic" has been replaced with "person of unsound mind" to reflect modern, non-stigmatizing language. 

Competency Assessment of Child Witnesses: 

• The trial court has a mandatory duty to conduct a preliminary competency assessment of a child witness before recording their testimony. 
• The court must satisfy itself through proper preliminary inquiry that the child understands the questions put to them. 
• The court must assess whether the child can give rational and coherent answers. 
• The competency test serves to establish that the child has not been tutored or coached. 
• The assessment must be conducted and recorded before relying on the child's testimony for conviction.