Select the right statements with respect to the ‘testimony of witness’ –

(i) Though a child witness is prone to influence and tutoring but it cannot be laid down as an infallible rule of law that in no case the evidence of such a witness can be relied on.

So long as there is no evidence of tutoring of a child witness, and if testimony gives fairly impressive narration of the incident free from embellishments or distortions, it ought not to be rejected on the sole score that the testimony is that of a child witness.

(ii) Competency of a person to be a witness is one thing and his eligibility to testify on oath is another under section 118 of the Evidence Act.

(iii) Evidence of child witness is not doubt relevant and admissible under section 118 of the Evidence Act though a child witness suffers from several disabilities concerning his

power of observation, retention and reproduction. Hence, it should be accepted after very careful consideration and satisfaction that he was slating the correct version.

(iv) Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, section 118 of the Evidence Act

envisages that 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 their questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to

testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on  being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction based thereon.

(v) Section 118 of the Evidence Act, a child is a competent witness and his unsworn testimony can be accepted provided the child possess sufficient intelligence and understands the importance of telling the truth. The determining factor, as per section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not the infancy, i.e., the tender age, but the capacity or ability of the child witness to understand the questions and to give rational answers thereto. Thus, tender age or immaturity of intellects may be a ground for rejecting the testimony of child witness but if he is able to understand the questions put to him and gives rational answers then his evidence can be accepted and the conviction of the accused can be based on his evidence, though his evidence is to be approached with case and caution.

(vi) It is well settled that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is a practical wisdom than of law.

(vii) In rape case, the prosecutrix is incompetent witness.

(viii) Section 118 of the Evidence Act, falls within chapter X of the Act.

(ix) In exception to section 118 of the Evidence Act, it is given that a lunatic is not in competent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.