Competency of 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 will be competent to give evidence if he is able to understand the question put to him and to give a rational answer to the question. Unless he was unable to understand the question posed to him due to his tender age, extreme old age, illness or any infirmity. However, according to the explanation of Article 118, it is expected that a mentally disturbed person or an insane person can testify in court if he understands the question asked to him and can give a rational answer to the question. The only proficiency test in this section is intellectual ability, in other words, the intellectual ability test. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There is no clear law in court about how to measure the competence or intelligence level of a child witness so that he or she can testify in court. The law described only “tender age.” There are no specific minimum or maximum age limits either for young people or for very old age. It depends solely on the facts of the case. Competence under Article 118 is not assessed based on a person's age, but only based on their ability to understand. For example, even if a person has reached the age of majority it does not mean that he or she has reached the tender age to testify in court. Whether the child witness has reached the tender age to understand the question posed to the child will have to be determined by the court. The court will review the minor's background and determine whether he understands the nature or consequences of the response he made. Whether a minor is qualified to testify in court can be determined by the judge based on his ability to communicate in everyday life, whether he is able to distinguish truth from falsity or understand his obligation to tell the truth to the court. In the case of Chao Chong & Ors v Public Prosecutor, the court ruled that the judge will give less weight to the evidence gathered at the arraignment stage because the child witness is in danger of being unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Therefore, the court required corroborated evidence from the child witness. Similarly, in section 133A of EA, this section talks about the trials of the child at an early age. This section should be read in conjunction with section 118 as section 118 talks about the person who can give evidence including a young child. Under section 133A, a child of tender age cannot be called as a witness to give sworn or unsworn evidence. Unsworn evidence may be admissible by the court if the court finds that the minor possessed sufficient intelligence and understood the duty to tell the truth, but unsworn evidence must be corroborated by physical evidence, so the accused can only be convicted. Generally, after the court determines that a minor witness is a competent witness, the court will proceed to determine whether the minor witness is capable of giving sworn or unsworn evidence. A sworn evidence means that oral testimony given by a witness under oath or affirmation however, unsworn evidence means that statement made by the witness after the warning given by the court not to tell anything but the truth. Whether to provide sworn or unsworn evidence is based solely on the opinion of the court which varies from case to case. Sworn evidence will only be given by the child who understands the nature of the oath. On the contrary, if the court deems.