Detailed Study Notes for Unit V

Unit-V: Competency of Witnesses, Privileges, Accomplices, Examination & Impeaching Credit

All persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease, body, or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
Lunatics / Persons of Unsound Mind: A lunatic is competent to testify unless his mental disorder prevents him from understanding questions and giving rational answers.
Child Witness: A child is competent to testify if the court is satisfied that the child possesses sufficient intellectual capacity to understand questions and offers rational, un-tutored responses.

Spousal Communications (Section 130): No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him/her during marriage by any person to whom he/she is or has been married; nor shall any person be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it consents (with exceptions in suits between married persons or proceedings for crimes committed against each other).
Official Communications (Section 133): No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
Advocate-Client Privilege (Section 135): No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate.

Competency of Accomplice: An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
The Rule of Prudence (Section 138 / old IEA Sec. 114(b)): While an accomplice is competent and a conviction based solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is legally valid, rule of judicial practice and prudence dictates that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime.

Examination-in-Chief: The examination of a witness by the party who calls him.
Cross-Examination: The examination of a witness by the adverse party.
Re-Examination: The examination of a witness by the party who called him, subsequent to cross-examination (restricted strictly to matters arising out of cross-examination).

Definition (Section 145): Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question.
Rule (Section 146): Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in examination-in-chief or in re-examination, except with the permission of the court. However, leading questions may be asked in cross-examination (Section 147).

Hostile Witness (Section 154 / old IEA Sec. 154): The court may permit the party who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party (permitting impeachment of one’s own witness when the witness turns hostile or displays a hostile animus).
Impeaching Credit of Witness (Section 159): The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party:
1. By evidence of persons who testify that they believe him to be unworthy of credit.
2. By proof that the witness has been bribed or has received criminal inducement.
3. By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

Case Title: Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra
Citation & Court: (1997) 5 SCC 341 (Supreme Court of India)
Related Statutory Provisions: Section 124 of BSA (old IEA Sec. 118).
The Story & Real-Line Background: A murder trial relied primarily on the eyewitness testimony of a 7-year-old child. The defense challenged the competency and reliability of the child witness, arguing that children are easily tutored and prone to imagination.
Legal Issues Involved: The criteria for admitting child testimony and the necessity of preliminary voir dire (competency test) and corroboration.
Final Judgement & Ratio Decidendi:
- Ruling: The Supreme Court held that a child witness can be a competent witness provided he/she understands the questions and gives rational answers. There is no absolute rule that a child’s testimony must be corroborated; however, the court must exercise extreme caution and conduct a preliminary inquiry to ensure the child was not tutored.
- Ratio: Child witness testimony is admissible if the court is satisfied about the child’s intellectual capacity and absence of tutoring, requiring cautious judicial scrutiny.

Case Title: Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation & Court: AIR 1957 SC 637 (Supreme Court of India)
Related Statutory Provisions: Section 138 of BSA (old IEA Sec. 133 and 114(b)).
The Story & Real-Line Background: In a conspiracy trial, an approver (accomplice) turned state witness and gave detailed testimony implicating the accused persons. The conviction was challenged on the ground that an accomplice is an infamous witness whose testimony cannot be acted upon without independent corroboration.
Legal Issues Involved: The interplay between statutory competency of an accomplice and the mandatory rule of judicial caution regarding corroboration.
Final Judgement & Ratio Decidendi:
- Ruling: The Supreme Court clarified that while Section 138 makes an accomplice a competent witness and allows conviction on uncorroborated testimony, rule of practice (proviso) requires that it is dangerous to convict without independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused to the crime.
- Ratio: Accomplice testimony requires independent corroboration as a matter of judicial caution to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Unit Number	Topic / Concept Name	Relevant BSA Provision	Core Description / Subject Matter
Unit-V	Competency to Testify	Section 124	General capacity of witnesses, including children and persons of unsound mind.
Unit-V	Privileged Communications	Sections 130 to 135	Protection of spousal, official, and advocate-client confidential communications.
Unit-V	Accomplice Testimony	Section 138	Legal competency of accomplices subject to judicial rule of caution and corroboration.
Unit-V	Examination & Hostile Witness	Sections 139 to 154	Examination-in-chief, cross-examination, leading questions, and hostile witness impeachment.