"A preliminary examination to test the competence of a witness or evidence: According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "An oath administered to ...........

 Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 contemplates that all persons are 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 or extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same nature. For a child witness, normally the courts conduct "vior dire test" under which the court before examination puts certain preliminary questions to the child, which bear no connection with the case so as to judge the child's competency and understanding. If the child is capable of answering those questions properly and deposes in a smart manner, then the child is considered as a competent witness. A child is fully competent to depose before a court of law subject to his/her capacity and intellect to understand what he/she deposes about. Whether a child is a competent witness or not and whether he/she passes the 'rationality test' is something which is to be decided by the court in accordance with Article 3 read with Article 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 after carrying out the voir dire test. The term Voir Dire has been defined in various lexicons as under:

According to Black's Law dictionary, voir dire connotes:

"A preliminary examination to test the competence of a witness or evidence:

According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "An oath administered to a proposed witness or juror by which he or she is sworn to speak the truth in an examination to ascertain his or her competence."

According to Advance Law Lexicon A rule requiring that a party must call the best evidence that the nature of case will allow.

According to Advance Law Lexicon

"A special form of oath administered to a witness whose competency to give evidence in the particular matter before the Court is in question, or who is to be examined as to some other collateral matter."

Voir dire is an inquiry within a trial to decide relevant ancillary issues which are material for the just decision of that trial.

In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited but not otherwise.

Crl. Appeal-124-23
SAJJAD AHMED VS THE STATE
Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram 27-06-2024
2024 LHC 6159