Case Note & Summary
The appellant, P Ramesh, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur for the murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment and three years respectively. During trial, the prosecution sought to examine the couple's two minor children, PW-3 (aged 8) and PW-4 (aged 6), as witnesses. On 19 May 2015, the trial judge posed preliminary questions to assess their competency. Both children stated they did not know the judge or the lawyers, but they understood they were in court to depose about their mother's death. The trial judge held them incompetent to testify solely on the ground that they did not know the judge and lawyers, and refused to record their evidence. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench, which set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the Trial Court with a direction to examine PW-3 and PW-4 after properly ascertaining their capacity to depose, and to allow the accused to lead rebuttal evidence. The appellant challenged this remand order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the trial judge's reasoning was erroneous, as the children were aware of the purpose of their presence and were capable of giving rational answers. However, the Supreme Court noted that over five years had elapsed since the incident, the children were in the custody of their maternal grandmother, and no revision was filed by the prosecution against the trial court's refusal to record their evidence. The Court held that a remand at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the accused, who had already been in custody. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand order and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on the merits based on the evidence already on record, applying the settled principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The Court clarified that the appellant would be entitled to raise all available grounds before the High Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Competency of Child Witness - Section 118 Evidence Act 1872 - The trial court erroneously held child witnesses (aged 8 and 6) incompetent solely because they did not know the judge and lawyers, ignoring that they understood the purpose of their presence and were capable of giving rational answers. The Supreme Court held that the trial court must assess whether the child has the intellectual and cognitive skills to recollect and narrate incidents, not merely whether the child knows the judge. (Paras 11-13) B) Criminal Procedure - Remand Order - High Court's Power to Remand - The High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for recording evidence of child witnesses. The Supreme Court held that since over five years had elapsed and the children were in custody of maternal grandmother, remand would cause serious prejudice to the accused. The High Court should instead decide the appeal on the basis of existing evidence, applying principles of circumstantial evidence. (Paras 9, 14-15) C) Evidence Law - Oath or Affirmation for Child Witness - Section 4 Oaths Act 1969 - A child under twelve years may be examined without oath or affirmation if the court is satisfied that the child understands the duty to speak the truth but not the nature of an oath. The trial court's failure to properly assess competency under Section 118 Evidence Act led to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the Trial Court for recording evidence of child witnesses after the Trial Court had erroneously held them incompetent to testify.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment dated 27 March 2018 and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits based on the evidence already on record, applying the settled principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The appellant is entitled to raise all available grounds before the High Court.
Law Points
- Competency of child witness
- Section 118 Evidence Act 1872
- Section 4 Oaths Act 1969
- Remand order
- Circumstantial evidence
