Competence of a witness means a person who is legally capable of being a witness to testify in court. According to section 118 of the Evidence Act 1950, any person is competent to give evidence if he can understand the question put to him and give a rational answer to it. Unless he cannot understand the question asked to him due to his tender age, old age, illness or any illness. However, according to the explanation of Article 118, it provides that a mentally ill person or an insane person can testify in court if he understands the question asked to him and can give a rational answer to it. The only proficiency test provided in this section is Intellectual Ability i.e. Intellectual Ability Test. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayThere is no specific law in court on how to measure the skill or intelligence level of a child witness so that they can testify in court. The law only described “tender age.” There is no specific minimum or maximum age limit, neither for tender age nor for extreme old age. It depends solely on the facts of the case. Competence under section 118 is not tested on the basis of a person's age but only on the basis of their ability to understand. For example, even a person having reached the age of majority does not mean that they have reached the tender age that legally allows them to testify in court. It is up to the court to determine whether a child witness has reached the tender age necessary to understand the question asked of the child. The court will review the child's history and determine whether the child understands the nature or consequences of the response he or she gave. The judge can determine whether a child may be qualified to testify in court based on whether he or she is able to communicate in daily life, whether he or she can distinguish fact from falsehood, or whether he or she understands his or her obligation to tell the truth in court. . In the case of Chao Chong & Ors v Attorney General, the court ruled that the judge would give less weight to the evidence taken during the affirmation because the child witness runs the risk of not being able to differentiate between reality and the fantasy. Therefore, the court required corroborated evidence from the child witness. Similarly, under section 133A of the EA, this section speaks to the testimony of an infant. This section should be read in conjunction with section 118, as section 118 talks about who can give evidence including an infant. Under section 133A, a young child may be called as a witness to give evidence under oath or without oath. Unsworn evidence may be admissible in court if the court is of the opinion that such child possessed sufficient intelligence and understood the duty to tell the truth, but that, subject to such unsworn evidence, it must be corroborated by physical evidence, then the accused cannot be convicted. Generally speaking, once the court determines that a child witness is a competent witness, the court will determine whether the child witness is able to testify under oath or without oath. Sworn evidence means the oral testimony given by a witness under oath or affirmation, on the other hand, unsworn evidence means the statement made by the witness after a warning given by the court not to tell anything other than the truth. Whether to testify under oath or without oath is solely based on the opinion of the court which varies in different cases. Only the child who understands.