Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MASEEL AHMAD versus DR. JAMIL AHMAD KHAN


Evidence Act 1872 Section 118 Children's testimony cannot be said about the age of 12 (less than 15)
1968 P Cr. L J 1525

[Supreme Court]

Present: Fazal-e-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ

GHULAM MUSTAFA-Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE-Respondent

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 56 of 1968, decided on 13th March 1968.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Labore, dated the 17th January 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 1965).

(a) Penal Code (XLY of 1860)-----

S. 302-Witness---Mere relationship with deceased no ground for discarding evidence.

(b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)

, S. 118-Child witness

Bo y of 12 (much less of 15) cannot be said to be of tender age.

Mian Sher Alam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 13th March 1968.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.

-The petitioner has been con victed under section 304(11), P. P. C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for causing the death of his co-villager Muhammad Iqbal with khunda blows on his head.

Conviction is supported by the direct testimony of two younger brothers of the deceased who happened to accompany him at the time of occurrence, namely, Altaf Hussain 'and LAI Hussain, P. Ws. Neither witness bad any enmity to falsely implicate the petitioner and both the trial Judge and the High Court have placed reliance on their testimony. Ws see no reason to differ with their appraisal.

It was urged that Altaf Hussain and Lal Hussain being the brothers of the deceased were interested witnesses and in the absence of any corroborative circumstance it was not safe to rely on them. The contention is untenable as we do not consider mere relationship of a witness with the deceased to be a sufficient ground to discredit him. It was next urged that Muhammad Abbas brother of the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Judge which cast doubt on the evidence of the two eye-witnesses. The contention is equally without substance for although there were two injuries on the person of the deceased the eye-witnesses instead of attributing one injury to either of them deposed that both were caused by the petitioner while Muhammad Abbas only instigated him to attack the deceased. Lastly it was urged that Altaf Hussain and Lal Hussain aged 15 and 12 years respectively were of tender age and the trial Judge had failed to follow the procedure laid down in section 118 of the Evidence Act in recording their testimony. The contention is wholly devoid of force for a boy of 12 much B less a boy of 15 cannot be said to be of tender age within section 118.

We thus see no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and dismiss the petition.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates contact from Kot Ghulam Mohd lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.