Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 435, 439, 161

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 435, 439 & 161--Criminal revision--Extra-judicial confession--Intelligible statement--There was no necessity for Prosecutor to have made such an application before trial Court for recording of statement of minor child through an Expert as there was no basis for same and it was always case of prosecution itself that minor child was competent to make a statement and also indeed had made such a statement during investigation of case which was recorded, without assistance of any Expert, u/S. 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, not only application as submitted by Prosecutor was pre-emptive in nature and unnecessary but acceptance of said application in manner that trial Court observed that statement of minor child be recorded through her mother, was also without basis for simple reason that without testing competency of minor child trial Court came to conclusion that she was unable to make an intelligible statement before Court--Held: It was duty of trial Court to have decided whether minor child was competent to make an intelligible statement or not--The trial Court should have tested capacity of minor child as required under law and should not have passed any order prior to coming to a conclusion in this regard--Petition disposed of.       [P. 640] A & B Mr. Jam Waheed Ahmad Bobra, Deputy District Public Prosecutor. Date of hearing: 10.3.2026. Order Through this petition, the State has assailed the order dated 29.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court Anti Rape Act, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby he had directed that the statement of Mst. Sawera Khan shall be recorded with the assistance of her mother (the complainant of the case F.I.R No. 844 of 2025 registered at Police Station City A-Division, District Rahim Yar Khan), after an application had been submitted by the learned Prosecutor concerned that the statement of Mst. Sawera Khan be recorded through an Expert as Mst. Sawera Khan was a “special child” who did not have full capacity of speech. 2.       The brief facts of the case, leading up to the filing of…