[IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ]

1962 Present : Basnayake, C. J. (President), Herat, J., and
Abeyesundere, J.

THE QUEEN v. K. Y. SIRIPINA

APPEAL No. 42 OF 1962, WITH APPLICATION No. 46

S. C. 405-M. C. Ratnapura, 78,048

    Evidence-Omission to administer oath to witness-Effect-Oaths Ordinance, ss. 4 (1) (a), 9-Evidence Ordinance, s. 118.

Once the Judge has elected to take the statement of a person as evidence, he-has no option but to administer either an oath or affirmation to such person as the case may require. Section 9 of the Oaths Ordinance which provides that evidence is not invalidated by omission of oath applies only to cases of accidental omission to administer the oath and not to cases of deliberate omission.

Where, without an oath or affirmation being administered, the evidence of a boy who was 11 years of age was taken after the trial Judge made the following order:-

"I order that in view of the fact that the witness does not seem to understand the meaning of the words of the affirmation that his evidence be recorded without the witness being affirmed. "-

Held, that the evidence of the boy was inadmissible.

The King