“Record preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the Trial Court:” Supreme Court

While hearing the Pradeep vs. The State of Haryana case, the Supreme Court bench stated that the preliminary examination of the minor is very sketchy. The bench added, “Only three questions were put to the minor on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the witness was capable of giving answers to each and every question.” The bench including  Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Abhay S. Oka observed that the learned Sessions Judge did not perform his duty well. The Supreme Court further said that “Before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to him with a view to ascertain whether the minor can understand the questions put to him and is in a position to give rational answers. The Judge must be satisfied that the minor is able to understand the questions and respond to them and understand the importance of speaking the truth. Therefore, the role of the Judge who records the evidence is very crucial. He has to make a proper preliminary examination of the minor by putting appropriate questions to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers. It is advisable to record the preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the Trial Court.” Also,  the Supreme Court stated that there is no support or corroboration to the testimony of Ajay (Prosecution Witness). The bench further opined that “A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution.” The appeal was further allowed by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court.