2009 PLP 307 (MLD)
HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, MULTAN and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 307 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, MULTAN and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 307 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 307 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 307 (MLD) (HAQ NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, MULTAN and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Khokhar for Petitioner.
- Sardar Mehboob for Respondent.
- 2. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and learned DPG for State and have gone through the record with their assistance.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 3
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-A
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Incompetency of witness to record evidence
Petitioner/complainant had assailed order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, whereby prosecution witness/alleged abductee/minor had been declared incompetent to record evidence on account of his tender age
Said witness was produced before the Trial Court and was put certain questions to judge his intellectual level; he correctly answered the question regarding his sisters, friends and the chips he liked to eat, however, he could not tell the number of his house and telephone installed therein
Witness could not properly differentiate between `Daada' and `Naana'
Under Article 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the test of competence of a witness was that he understood the questions and gave rational answers; it was not necessary that he should answer all the questions correctly
Witness, in the case was quite intelligent and he had replied the questions put by the Trial Court, in a rational manner, his ignorance about house number or telephone number, could not be considered as his disqualification to be a competent witness
Even an elder might not be remembering his house or telephone number
Inability of witness to correctly differentiate between `Daada' and `Naana', was also of not much importance and he could not be declared as incompetent witness on that ground
Observation of the Trial Court was not correct and the impugned order was not sustainable in law--Impugned order was set aside with direction that evidence of alleged abductee/prosecution witness/minor be recorded as prosecution witness.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.--Through the instant criminal revision, the petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No.109, dated 22-3-2008 under section 365-A, P.P.C. read with section 7 ATA Police Station City Kehror Pakka, District Lodhran, has assailed the order, dated 14-7-2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.II, Multan, whereby P.W.7 Ali Nawaz abductee has been declared incompetent to record evidence on account of his tender age.
2. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and learned DPG for State and have gone through the record with their assistance.
3. P.W.7. Ali Nawaz was produced before the learned trial Court on 14-7-2008. He was put certain questions to judge his intellect and competence. He correctly answered the questions regarding his sisters, friends and the chips he likes to eat. However, he could not tell the number of his house and telephone installed therein. Similarly he could not properly differentiate between `Daada' and `Naana' and in reply to this question, and `Budha'.
4. As regards competence of witness to give evidence, Article 3 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides 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 years, extreme oldage, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. Under this provision, the test of competence of a witness is that he understands the questions and gives rational answers. It is not necessary that he should answer all the questions correctly. We are of the view that he is quite intelligent and he has replied the questions put by the learned trial Court, in a rational manner. His ignorance about house number or telephone number cannot be considered as his disqualification to be competent witness. Even an elder might not be remembering his house or telephone number. His inability to correctly differentiate between `Daada' and `Naana' is also of not much importance and he cannot be declared as incompetent witness on this ground.
5. In view of the above, we hold that the observation of learned trial Court is not correct and the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Hence, we allow this criminal revision, set aside the impugned order and direct that evidence of Ali Nawaz minor be recorded as a P.W. We have been informed that as many as nine P.Ws. have been recorded and only said witness is left to be recorded. Therefore, we direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial preferably within three months of receipt of this order.
6. Disposed of. H.B.T./H-25/L Petition dismissed.