Agniraj & Others vs. State, 2025
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that child witnesses are inherently vulnerable and susceptible to influence or tutoring.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
29 May 2025
Judges
Justice Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A group of 11 individuals were convicted of murder by a trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court.
-
A key prosecution witness (PW-9), a 10-year-old girl named Nikila, provided eyewitness testimony during trial.
-
No preliminary inquiry was conducted by the trial court to assess her competency to testify, as required under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act.
-
The magistrate administered the oath to the child without verifying her understanding of the oath’s significance.
-
The child identified the accused in court for the first time, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted beforehand.
-
During cross-examination, the child admitted that her mother told her what happened, raising serious concern of tutoring.
Issues
-
Whether a child witness’s testimony can be relied upon when no preliminary competency test was conducted under Section 118 of the Evidence Act?
-
Whether the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the minor identified the accused in court vitiated the reliability of the identification?
-
Was the child witness susceptible to tutoring, and did this affect the fairness of the trial?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all 11 accused, finding the trial procedurally flawed.
-
The trial court failed to follow the mandatory safeguard under Section 118 – i.e., asking preliminary questions to determine the competency of the child to testify.
-
The trial judge wrongly administered an oath without determining whether the witness understood its significance.
-
TIP was not conducted, and the child identified the accused for the first time in court, making the identification unreliable.
-
The child’s admission during cross-examination that her mother told her the events raised serious concern of tutoring.
-
The Supreme Court therefore held that her entire testimony must be discarded.
Held
-
The testimony of the child witness (PW-9) was inadmissible as the procedural requirement under Section 118 of the Evidence Act was not followed.
-
TIP was essential, and its absence further weakened the prosecution’s case.
-
As the prosecution’s case rested heavily on the child witness’s version, conviction could not be sustained.
-
All 11 appellants were acquitted.
Analysis
-
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that child witnesses are inherently vulnerable and susceptible to influence or tutoring.
-
Section 118 imposes a “condition precedent”: before a child testifies, the court must be satisfied about their capacity to understand and respond to questions.
-
The absence of a competency test and failure to conduct a TIP showed serious procedural lapses.
-
This judgment safeguards the rights of the accused from unreliable child testimony and strengthens due process requirements when dealing with minor witnesses.
-
It also sends a message to trial courts to strictly adhere to procedural protocols when examining vulnerable witnesses.