Introduction:

In the landmark decision of Agniraj & Ors. etc. v. State, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 644, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of eleven individuals who had been found guilty of murder by the trial court, primarily on the basis of the testimony of a child witness. The judgment, authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka and delivered by a bench also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, scrutinized the improper reliance on the evidence provided by a 10-year-old girl (PW-9, Nikila), whose competency to testify had not been determined as required under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case brings to fore critical issues related to the admissibility of child witness testimonies, the procedural requirements of administering oaths, and the implications of non-compliance in serious criminal trials.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The case originated from a gruesome incident that led to the trial and conviction of the eleven appellants for the offense of murder under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution’s case rested significantly on the eye-witness testimony of a 10-year-old child, Nikila, who was purportedly present at the scene. According to the prosecution, her statement directly implicated the accused, and her in-court identification was treated as a key piece of evidence. During the proceedings, senior advocate Mr. R. Basant, appearing on behalf of the appellants, vehemently argued that the trial court failed to carry out a mandatory preliminary assessment of the child’s competency, as mandated under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. He pointed out that no preliminary questions were asked to determine whether the witness understood the nature and significance of the proceedings or the oath, which is a necessary prerequisite before recording a minor’s testimony. He further asserted that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the child’s first-time in-court identification of the accused were legally untenable, as these were carried out without any judicial safeguards. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, supporting the argument for the appellants, emphasized the susceptibility of minor witnesses to tutoring and suggested that Nikila’s narrative could have been influenced by her mother, as was evident from her cross-examination.

On the other hand, the respondent State, represented by Senior AAG Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, defended the conviction, stating that the child’s statement was coherent and aligned with the overall prosecution story. He argued that a minor’s evidence, if found truthful and reliable, need not be discarded merely because of age. He contended that the trial judge had recorded the testimony under oath, and that the absence of formal questioning did not fundamentally undermine the credibility of her account. He also highlighted that the rest of the evidence and circumstances corroborated the testimony and justified the conviction.

Judgement:

However, the Supreme Court did not find merit in the respondent’s arguments. The bench extensively referred to judicial precedents that require trial courts to determine the competency of a child witness through preliminary questioning before recording testimony. Justice Oka, writing the judgment, noted that the trial court neither asked any preliminary questions to Nikila nor ensured that she comprehended the importance of the oath. The judgment observed: “The law is well settled that before proceeding to record the evidence of a minor witness, preliminary questions must be asked by the Court to ascertain whether the witness is able to understand the questions and answer the same. The Court must be satisfied about the capacity of the minor to understand the questions and answer the same.”

The Court was categorical in stating that the Trial Judge had failed to satisfy himself about the child’s understanding before administering the oath, thereby rendering the testimony of Nikila inadmissible. The judgment went on to criticize the procedural lapses, particularly the absence of a TIP, which could have independently verified the credibility of Nikila’s identification of the accused. “The child witness identified the accused in court for the first time. No Test Identification Parade was held after the alleged incident, and her statement that her mother told her the details raised a genuine concern about tutoring,” the Court stated.

Highlighting the jurisprudence that recognizes the inherent vulnerability of child witnesses to external influence and coaching, the Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards. “Minors are prone to tutoring and in this case, we are dealing with a minor child who was 10 years old. The possibility of tutoring the witness cannot be ruled out,” the bench concluded. The apex court held that the failure to assess the competency of the child witness as per Section 118 and the procedural non-compliance in administering the oath was a serious flaw that vitiated the entire trial process. It ruled that the testimony of Nikila must be entirely excluded from the evidentiary consideration.

With the child witness’s statement excluded, the Court examined the rest of the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient material on record to uphold the convictions. “As far as PW-9 (Nikila) is concerned, we have already recorded reasons for discarding her testimony. Since the condition precedent for recording of statement of PW-9 (Nikila) for evidence has not been satisfied, her testimony has to be kept out of consideration,” the Court stated unequivocally.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all eleven appellants of the charges, emphasizing that procedural safeguards in criminal trials are not mere formalities but essential requirements for ensuring justice. This judgment sets a precedent that reaffirms the importance of judicial rigor when recording the evidence of child witnesses and the consequences of procedural lapses.