| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4225 = 2026 SLD 4225 |
Cr. A No. 905-P/2025
Presented By: (SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 14.01.2026 Appellants by: Mr. Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate. The State by: Mr. Noman-ul-Haq Kakakhel, Addl. AG.
Respondent / Complainant by: - Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, Advocate.
Said Jalal
VS
Anwar Ali & another
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 17
Law: Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021
Section: 376
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 50 & 53
Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Ordinance, (II of 2010)
Section: 265-C
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 342
Tagline
“Child witness competency is determined by capacity to understand questions and give rational answers, not by familiarity with courtroom procedure, identity of the Judge or judicial formalities.”
Summary
The Peshawar High Court, in a criminal appeal arising out of a conviction for sexual assault of a minor, examined the legality of the trial court's decision to declare the minor prosecutrix incompetent to testify.
The minor, approximately 7–8 years old, had been declared incompetent because she could not identify the courtroom, did not know who the Judge was, and could not explain the nature of court proceedings. The High Court held that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal test for determining competency.
The Court emphasized that competency and credibility are distinct concepts. Competency is a threshold question concerning whether a witness has the mental capacity to understand questions and give rational answers. The law does not require a child witness to understand courtroom hierarchy, judicial proceedings, legal terminology, or institutional formalities.