Who may testify
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with who may testify. 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 tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or 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.
Section 118, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 124 Who may testify Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf 2008-02-19 (not same-date order-7 ROP). Crl A 2007. IEA 118: a child is a competent witness if the court is satisfied the child understands the questions and can give rational answers; a child's evidence can convict if it is otherwise reliable. Map iea 118 and successor bsa 124.
On this section: s.118: a child is a competent witness if the court is satisfied the child understands the questions put and can give rational answers. Reliable child evidence can found a conviction.
-
Ganga Singh vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a rape victim (prosecutrix) is a competent and reliable form of evidence under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act requiring no mandatory corroboration in material particulars as the prosecutrix is a victim, not an accomplice. Her evidence carries the same evidentiary weight as that of an injured witness in cases of physical violence. When the prosecutrix provides a clear, categorical account of rape that is corroborated by evidence of prior consistent statements (under Section 157 IEA), forensic evidence confirming intercourse, and absence of motive for false implication, a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding absence of physical injuries or gaps in peripheral details not subject to cross-examination. The legal definition of 'consent' under Section 375 IPC requires voluntary participation involving full exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act with complete freedom of choice between resistance and assent; inability to physically resist forced intercourse negates any claim of consent. Defects in police investigation do not warrant acquittal if the prosecution has established guilt through reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt; defects only merit acquittal if they create reasonable doubt regarding the core charge.
On this section: Prosecutrix is competent witness under this section; her evidence can stand independently without mandatory corroboration
-
State of Karnataka vs Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A child witness of tender age can testify in criminal proceedings if the child possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the questions put to the witness and to give rational answers thereto. The trial judge, after conducting preliminary examination to test the child's understanding, demeanor, and grasp of truth and its consequences, is the appropriate authority to determine competency. The evidence of a competent child witness cannot be rejected merely on the presumption that the child has been tutored because of staying with or being examined by an educated relative such as an advocate. If after careful scrutiny of child witness evidence, the court finds an impress of truth therein, the evidence can form the basis of conviction. When a High Court reviews a trial court's conviction, it must provide reasoned judgment indicating specific deficiencies in the trial court's assessment rather than setting aside the conviction abruptly without explanation.
On this section: Establishes that all persons shall be competent to testify unless court considers they are prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender years, extreme old age, disease, or other cause. Applied to determine child witness competency based on intellectual capacity rather than age.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prosecutrix's testimony in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and can sustain a conviction. A woman who is the victim of sexual assault stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Her evidence must be appreciated in the background of the entire case with heightened sensitivity. Threats and coercion negate any notion of consent, and a minor cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse regardless of her apparent willingness or voluntary accompaniment. The court must not allow infirmities in investigation to undermine the credibility of victim testimony when the evidence is otherwise reliable.
On this section: Competency of witnesses - The court held that the prosecutrix is a competent witness under this section.
-
Mohd. Imran Khan vs State(govt. of National Cap. Ter. of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, does not require corroboration from other witnesses or evidence to secure conviction; the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if satisfied of its truthfulness. A woman in Indian society would not falsely accuse someone of rape knowing the severe social consequences and stigma she would face throughout her life. Therefore, her credible testimony must be evaluated with appropriate sensitivity to the trauma of rape, and the court should have no hesitation in accepting her evidence when it bears marks of reliability. The presence of knife threats, coercion, and the minor age of the victim are material factors negating the effect of the victim's voluntary accompanying of the accused, and do not indicate consent.
On this section: Competency of witnesses: Prosecutrix determined to be competent witness despite trauma; her evidence admissible without special requirement of corroboration.
-
Munna vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case deserves significant weight and can be the basis for conviction even without corroboration, such conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecutrix's statement has inherent infirmities and the totality of circumstances creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The presence of major discrepancies between initial allegations and trial version, the victim's own subsequent retraction, complete absence of medical or physical corroborative evidence, internal contradictions in the victim's testimony, and evidence of motive for false accusation collectively create a situation where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
On this section: Competency of witnesses; used to establish that prosecutrix is a competent witness
-
Gul Singh @ Guliya vs State of M. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A child witness aged 14-16 years can provide credible and reliable testimony forming the basis for criminal conviction if: (a) the witness demonstrates understanding of questions and ability to give rational answers; (b) the witness is not tutored or coached; (c) the child's demeanor is consistent with that of any competent witness; and (d) while corroboration from other dependable evidence is desirable as a matter of judicial prudence, it is not mandatory for conviction. The reliability of child witness evidence depends on the circumstances of each case and must be assessed individually. In cases of violent crime with multiple eyewitnesses including injured family members, the absence of one accused's name in the original FIR does not vitiate identification if subsequent statements of other witnesses immediately name all accused and their identifications are corroborated by consistent testimony and medical evidence.
On this section: Competency of witnesses - Cited to support the admissibility of child witness testimony without oath if the child is able to understand questions and give rational answers
-
Littu @ Anuj Yadav @ Littu Yadav @ Anuj Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In rape cases, the testimony of the victim is vital and corroboration is not mandatory if the victim's evidence inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person's lust, and her evidence must receive the same weight as that of an injured witness. Substantial compliance with procedural requirements regarding recording of evidence through interpreters and medical examination of accused does not vitiate the prosecution case if the core evidence of rape is established through credible victim testimony supported by medical evidence and identification of accused.
On this section: Competency of witnesses; applied to establish victim as competent witness
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… We will deal with evidence of eye-witness PW-5 Kamar Hasim, who was 15 years old at the time of recording his evidence. It is well settled that a minor is also a competent witness. This Court in the case of P.Ramesh v. State[6]( page-7-1) has dealt with this issue. Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the 'Evidence Act'), a minor is a competent witness. In paragraph 16 of the said decision in the case of P. Ramesh , this Court held thus: > "16. In order to determine the competency of a child witness, the Judge has to form her or his opinion. <span …
-
… We will deal with evidence of eye-witness PW-5 Kamar Hasim, who was 15 years old at the time of recording his evidence. It is well settled that a minor is also a competent witness. This Court in the case of P.Ramesh v. State[6]( page-7-1) has dealt with this issue. Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the 'Evidence Act'), a minor is a competent witness. In paragraph 16 of the said decision in the case of P. Ramesh , this Court held thus: > "16. In order to determine the competency of a child witness, the Judge has to form her or his opinion. <span …
-
… Though the victim was 21 years old when she was examined before the court, the Court failed to assess her competency to testify by asking appropriate questions as mandated under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By ignoring all inconsistencies in her evidence on the premise that the victim is a sick girl, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. It is contended that while it cannot be doubted that rape causes immense distress and humiliation to the victim, a false allegation of …
Questions about Section 118
What have the courts held on Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (19 Feb 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.118: a child is a competent witness if the court is satisfied the child understands the questions put and can give rational answers. Reliable child evidence can found a conviction. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 118, section 118 IEA, section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra (19 Feb 2008).
What should I read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 124 (Who may testify), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 118, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.