Section 4. Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreter and jurors
(1) Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely:--
(a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined, or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence;
(b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; and
(c) jurors:
Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.
(2) Nothing in this section shall render it lawful to administer, in a criminal proceeding, an oath or affirmation to the accused person, unless he is examined as a witness for the defence, or necessary to administer to the official interpreter of any court, after he has entered on the execution of the duties of his office, an oath or affirmation that he will faithfully discharge those duties.
How courts have applied section 4
- The proviso to Section 4(1) dispenses with oath for a child under twelve if the court is satisfied the child understands the duty to speak the truth but not the nature of an oath; omission of oath does not render evidence inadmissible.1,2,3
- A child of tender age is competent to testify if able to understand questions and give rational answers; refusal to record a child's evidence solely because the child did not know the judge is erroneous.4
- Only a court or person with lawful authority to receive evidence can administer oaths; affidavits sworn elsewhere in Section 145 proceedings are inadmissible.5
- A witness who refuses to take an oath and is not offered a solemn affirmation cannot have the deposition read in evidence.6
- In criminal proceedings, an accused cannot be administered an oath unless examined as a defence witness; guidelines compelling accused to file income/assets affidavits violate the Oaths Act and Article 20(3).7
- For deaf-and-dumb witnesses, a preliminary competency inquiry is required; failure to conduct it and record satisfaction as to ability to testify vitiates a conviction.8,9
- For statements under Section 164 CrPC, oath is not mandatory, and the magistrate only has the power to administer it.10
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly address how courts treat child witnesses and witnesses with disabilities under Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969. For child witnesses below twelve years, the proviso to Section 4(1) allows a court to dispense with an oath if the child understands the duty to speak the truth but not the nature of an oath; in such cases, the evidence remains admissible. Courts have held that failing to administer an oath does not affect admissibility, only credibility. The absence of a preliminary examination of a child witness under the proviso does not render their testimony unreliable. However, a trial court's refusal to record a child's evidence solely because the child did not know the judge or lawyers was held manifestly erroneous, since a child is competent if able to understand questions and give rational answers. For deaf-and-dumb witnesses, courts require a preliminary competency inquiry and proper interpretation; a trial that fails to conduct such an inquiry and records no satisfaction as to the witness's ability to testify has been held to vitiate the conviction.1,2,3,11,12,4,8,9
Section 4 also governs who may administer oaths. Only a court or person with lawful authority to receive evidence can administer an oath; in Section 145 CrPC proceedings, only the magistrate conducting the proceedings can administer the oath, and affidavits sworn elsewhere are inadmissible. In a civil context, a witness who refuses to take an oath and is not offered a solemn affirmation cannot have his or her deposition read in evidence. In criminal proceedings, Section 4(2) prohibits administering an oath to an accused unless examined as a defence witness; a guideline requiring an accused to file income and assets affidavits was declared non-operative as it violated the Oaths Act and Article 20(3). For statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, oath is not mandatory, and the magistrate only has power to administer it.5,6,7,10
Several judgements address the interplay between Section 4 and the Evidence Act. The proviso to Section 4(1) is cited alongside Section 118 of the Evidence Act for child competency, requiring the trial judge to record an opinion that the child can understand questions and give rational answers. For a child under twelve, failure to question on the duty to speak the truth is not fatal if the court has otherwise recorded satisfaction. Oath or affirmation is required for all witnesses, but its omission does not make evidence inadmissible. In some cases, the absence of preliminary inquiry or non-compliance with the proviso did not vitiate conviction where the testimony was otherwise reliable and corroborated. Conversely, a conviction was set aside where the sole eyewitness, a minor deaf-and-speech-impaired child, was examined without the required competency inquiry.1,4,2,11,12,3,8
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
Child witness — competency — Section 118 Evidence Act, 1872 — preliminary examination by Judge — oath to child witness — Section 4 Oaths Act, 1969 — corroboration of child witness not a rule but measure of caution — tutoring — adverse inference for non-examination of milkman and appellant's father — footwear/shoe…
AllowedOpenP Ramesh v State rep by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2019 (Supreme Court of India, 9 July 2019, Chandrachud and Banerjee JJ): competency of child witnesses under s.118 Evidence Act 1872 and s.4 Oaths Act 1969;
DismissedOpenDeaf and dumb witness; competent witness; Section 119 Evidence Act 1872; ss. 119 and 118; recording statement in writing versus sign language; interpreter must be impartial, of same surroundings, administered oath; record of signs not interpretation; Oaths Act 1969 Sections 4, 5 and 7;
DismissedOpenIn a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' challenge to the High Court's order holding affidavits filed before magistrates not in seisin of a Section 145 CrPC dispute inadmissible.
DismissedOpenChild witness competency — no preliminary questions, Section 118 Evidence Act, Section 4 Oaths Act 1969; reliability of sole eyewitness PW-2 Neelam; tutoring of child witness by PW-3; jaali sight-line and lighting doubts;
Meghalaya HC Crl.A. 42/2024 dismissed; POCSO conviction upheld (Sections 5(m)/6 POCSO Act 2012); child witness testimony reliability; no tutoring; Section 118 Evidence Act 1872 child witness competence; proviso Section 4(1) Oaths Act 1969 oath child witness admissibility;
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
A Delhi High Court Larger Bench reviewed the Full Bench 'Karan' guidelines mandating affidavits from convicts and Victim Impact Reports by DSLSA before orders on sentence.
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenRSA-496-2001 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (reserved 12.05.2025; decided 02.06.2025), Anil Kshetarpal, J. Keywords: proof of Will dated 14.10.1982; attesting witness refused oath; solemn affirmation not offered; Sections 4 and 5 Indian Oaths Act 1969; deposition cannot be read;
DisposedOpenChild witness competency; preliminary questions by Trial Court; proviso to s.4 Oaths Act 1969; s.118 Evidence Act; no minimum age for witness; child not questioned on duty to speak truth - not fatal; victim never cross-examined;
DismissedOpenChild witness; deaf and speech-impaired witness; competency inquiry; Sections 118 and 119 Indian Evidence Act 1872; Section 4 Oaths Act 1969; sign language interpreter — oath, neutrality, relative as interpreter; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of mute witness; tutoring of child witness; Section 313 Cr.P.C.;
AllowedOpenRape — Section 376(2)(l) IPC — intellectually disabled victim (75% moderate intellectual disability) — competency of witness — Section 118 Indian Evidence Act — voir dire / preliminary examination — Section 164(5A) CrPC — videography of statement of disabled victim — interpreter and special educator — statement in…
AllowedOpenTriple murder of wife and two minor sons; child witness competency under Section 118 Evidence Act; proviso to Section 4(1) Oaths Act 1969 not followed; tutoring of child witness; previous statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC not put in cross-examination; Karan Singh (2003) 12 SCC 587; Pradeep 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777;
DismissedOpen
Appeal against conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act for raping his 14-year-old sister. The court held a Section 164 CrPC statement without oath is not per se valueless and the victim's testimony stood corroborated by the appellant's Section 313 admission and medical evidence; appeal dismissed.
DisposedOpenPOCSO Act Section 6 conviction appeal dismissed Gauhati High Court CRL.A(J)/12/2025; aggravated penetrative sexual assault Sections 3(b) and 5(m) POCSO Act 2012; rape Section 376 AB IPC; criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC;
DismissedOpenAppeal against conviction for sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl under Section 10 of the POCSO Act after charge was framed under Section 6. The High Court held procedural lapses caused no failure of justice, upheld reliance on the victim's testimony despite FIR delay, and dismissed the appeal.
DismissedOpenDeaf and dumb witness testimony; Section 119 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; interpreter and special educator; oath administration; Oaths Act 1969 ss.4, 5, 7; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; Section 313 Cr.P.C. enquiry; attempt to commit rape; Section 511 IPC with Section 376(2)(j)(l) IPC; Section 323 IPC;
DisposedOpenGauhati High Court, Crl.A./11/2024, decision dated 04/12/2025 (Zothankhuma, J.). Keywords: POCSO Section 6 conviction; finger insertion into private parts of 4-year-old victim; aggravated penetrative sexual assault; sole testimony of child victim sufficient;
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS (CRM (A) 820 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Bivas Pattanayak J, 25.11.2025): an application supported by an affidavit affirmed by the nephew of petitioner No.1 as her duly authorised agent was held entertainable, applying Bonneswar Dutta and others,…
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS granted by Calcutta High Court (Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench) to Bimal Chandra Roy @ Bimal Roy and Dayanti Roy in Matigara Police Station Case No.615 dated 19.09.2025 (PTN WBDJOEP004699 of 2025) under BNS 2023 Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 324(2), 329(3), 303(2), 61(2)…
AllowedOpenGauhati High Court, Crl.A./114/2020, decided 03.11.2025 by N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. — Johirul Islam @ Jahirul Ali v. State of Assam & Anr. — Appeal against conviction under S.6 POCSO Act dismissed; conviction and sentence (10 years RI + Rs.10,000/- fine) affirmed.
DisposedOpenPOCSO appeal acquittal benefit of doubt; failure to prove victim's age; medical age 16-17 years plus/minus two years rule; Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 9 SCC 248; Court on its own Motion v. State NCT Delhi 2024 SC OnLine Delhi 4484; child witness competency test not conducted; P. Ramesh v.
AllowedOpenAppeal against conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on an 11-year-old girl. Court held minor discrepancies immaterial, non-compliance with Section 27 caused no prejudice, and no preliminary questions were needed for a 13-year-old witness. Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed.
DismissedOpen