Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4267 2025 SLD 4267 = 2025 PLD 641

Criminal Appeals Nos. 692, 704/J of 2022/BWP and Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2023, decided on 17th March, 2025.
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh and Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, JJ
Malik Farooq Haider for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.692 of 2022). Muhammad Sharif Bhatti for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.704 of 2022). Ch. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rab Nawaz Khan Baloch for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th January, 2025.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 365, 376

 

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 365 & 376---Abduction, forcible intercourse/rape---Appreciation of evidence---Mentally impaired victim---Competency to testify---Alternative means to record testimony---Accused were charged for committing rape with the mentally impaired daughter of the complainant after her abduction---During the trial, Female Medical Officer testified that victim was deaf and dump and unable to speak; that she was mentally retarded and unable to tell about previous such incidents or give relevant gynecological history---Prosecution submitted an application before the Trial Court to determine whether victim was competent to testify---Consequently, the Court summoned victim, conducted a voir dire test and found her unable to testify---However, Trial Court failed to explore whether victim's testimony could have been recorded through alternative means, which declared her incompetent to testify under Arts. 3 & 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, without seeking the opinion of a qualified psychiatric or psychological expert---Absence of expert evaluation constituted a serious procedural lapse, as mental incapacity did not automatically preclude a witness from providing testimony---Law did not rigidly assume that persons with disabilities were wholly incapable of expressing themselves---In criminal cases involving victims with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, their testimony should not be rejected outright due to their condition--Instead, appropriate procedural accommodations must be made to facilitate their meaningful participation in the legal process---Trial Court should have summoned an expert to assess whether victim communicated her experiences through alternative means before declaring her incompetent to testify---Thus, matter was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to summon a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist to assess victim's capacity to communicate and the feasibility of recording her testimony through alternative means---Appeal was disposed of in the above terms.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register