Child witness testimony and corroboration in sexual offence cases: unsworn evidence and prompt complaint upheld as reliable support.

A child witness's unsworn testimony is admissible if the court is satisfied that the child understands the duty to speak truthfully and can answer rationally; any omission in administering the oath affects credibility, not admissibility. In sexual offence cases, corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute rule of law, so conviction may rest on trustworthy uncorroborated evidence, though corroboration should ordinarily be considered. A prompt complaint to the mother was admissible as corroborative material and as relevant conduct, and the mother was not disqualified as an independent source merely by reason of relationship. The conviction was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of a child witness, who was not administered an oath, was admissible and whether formal recording of the opinion under the Oaths Act was essential. (ii) Whether corroboration is a rule of law in sexual offence cases and what the nature of the required corroboration is. (iii) Whether the child's prompt complaint to her mother could be used as corroboration and whether the mother was an independent source.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of a child witness, who was not administered an oath, was admissible and whether formal recording of the opinion under the Oaths Act was essential.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 13 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, shows that absence of an oath does not by itself make the testimony inadmissible. Competency depends on the witness's ability to understand and answer rationally, while omission or irregularity in administering an oath affects credibility, not admissibility. The required opinion of the Court that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth may be inferred from the circumstances, though it is desirable that it be formally recorded.

Conclusion: The child witness was competent and her evidence was admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether corroboration is a rule of law in sexual offence cases and what the nature of the required corroboration is.

Analysis: The rule requiring corroboration in such cases is a rule of caution and prudence, not an absolute rule of law that bars conviction without corroboration. The Judge must keep the need for corroboration in mind and indicate that consideration in the judgment, but conviction may still rest on uncorroborated testimony if the circumstances make it safe. Where corroboration is relied on, it need not confirm every detail, but must provide independent evidence making the complainant's story probable and connecting the accused with the offence, either directly or circumstantially.

Conclusion: Corroboration is ordinarily desirable as a rule of prudence, but it is not invariably essential as a matter of law.

Issue (iii): Whether the child's prompt complaint to her mother could be used as corroboration and whether the mother was an independent source.

Analysis: A former statement made at or about the time of the is admissible under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the complaint may also be relevant as conduct under Section 8, Illustration (j) of the Indian Evidence Act. The promptness of the complaint was sufficient in the circumstances, and the mother's relationship did not disqualify her from being an independent source absent proof of hostility or taint. On the facts, the child's statement to her mother, together with the surrounding circumstances, was enough to make it safe to act on the testimony.

Conclusion: The complaint to the mother was admissible corroborative material and was sufficient on the facts to support the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the evidence of the child witness was admissible and, on the facts, the conviction could safely be sustained on the material on record.

Ratio Decidendi: In sexual offence cases, corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute legal requirement, and a child's unsworn testimony is admissible if the Court is satisfied of the child's competency; a prompt former statement may be used as corroboration if it is sufficiently proximate to the and independently reliable in the circumstances.

---