In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. The trial court rejected the testimony of two child witnesses (aged 8 and 6) solely on the ground that they did not know the judge and lawyers before whom they stood, despite the children demonstrating awareness of the court's purpose and their own identity. The High Court set aside this decision and remanded for proper competency assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, holding that a child's inability to identify judicial officers does not render them incompetent. A child witness is competent if able to understand questions and give rational answers. The Court emphasized that competency must be determined through proper questioning of the child's intellectual capacity to understand the incident and speak truthfully.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.