Witness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

118. Who may testify?

All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are
prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational
answer to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body
and mind, or any other cause of the same kind. 

Explanation-
A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from
understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.

COMMENTS:

Evidence of child witness-

(i) The deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his
deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is not embellishment or
improvement therein the court may rely upon his evidence. Only in case there is
evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject
statement partly or fully.
Related Case- Ramesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011

(ii) Evidence of child witness is not required to be rejected per se; but Court as a rule
of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced
about the quality and reliability can record conviction based thereon.
Related Case- Golla Yelugu Govinda v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Reliability of witness-

Testimony of a relation or a friend normally would not falsely implicate a person

thereby shielding true actual culprit.
Related Case- Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa, 1997
It is true that by itself the evidence of a chance witness may not necessarily be false
but as has often been said that it is unsafe to be relied upon.
Related Case- Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v State of Maharashtra, 1997

It is thoroughly unsafe to rely on the evidence of the tutored witness.

Related Case- Krishna Mohali v State of Bihar, 1997

Relative or interested witnesses are not necessarily unreliable witnesses.

Related Case- Sawai Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1997

No doubt, an approver in the eye of law is a competent witness.

Related Case- Murlidharan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997

Evidence of child witness is not reliable who is under the influence of tutoring.
Related Case- Changan Dame v. State of Gujarat, 1994

Testimony of independent witness-

It is true that there is no immutable rule of appreciation of evidence that the testimony
of independent witnesses should be ipso facto accepted but all the same the
circumstance that witnesses are independent goes miles and miles to ensure their
truthfulness.

Criminal Courts decide cases and the question of acceptance of evidence of witnesses
on sound common sense and when they find witnesses to be wholly independent they
endeavour to fathom the reason as to why their evidence should not be accepted.
Ordinarily it is a safe and sound rule of appreciation of evidence to accept the
testimony of an independent witness provided it is in consonance with probabilities. It
is better if it is corroborated by inbuilt guarantees which ensure the truthfulness of the
prosecution case, as a prompt F.I.R recoveries at the instance of accused person and
the presence of injured eyewitnesses etc.
Related Case- Shravan Dashrath Datrange v. State of Maharashtra, 1997

119. Witness unable to communicate verbally/dumb witness.

A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which
he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written
and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral
evidence:

Provided that if the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take
the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and
such statement shall be video graphed. [Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013]

COMMENTS:

Deaf and dumb witness-

When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the Court, the Court has to exercise due
caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the requisite
amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of oath. On being satisfied
on this the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be
with the assistance of interpreter. However in case a person can read and write it is
most desirable to adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language.
Law requires that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
Related case- Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2012

120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands. Husband or wife of person
under criminal trial.

In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to
the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the
husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.