An appeal against a statement that failed to pass under Section 163/147/148/149 Criminal Code (V9 1898), Sections 417 (2A) and Section 161 of 161, was delayed by the CR PC Nature Trial Court Acquitted the defendant / accused on the charge of And that in his statement under Section 161 was allegedly abducted, the PC stated that he had gone to the custody with the accused and that the alleged abduction under section 161, C.R., was delayed in the FIR. Reliance was very detailed in the report written on the car statement. The PC, without scrutiny in its court, was unaware of the law as listed under Section 161, CCP was not a particular piece of evidence, but was merely used to dispute a witness in a case. Used for a limited purpose, before considering consent, the trial court had a legal obligation to first determine its age because the appellant / complainant in its court The age of 10 was approximately 10/11 years. The kidnappers had gained significant importance in the case, before the trial court, considering such consent, should have determined their age, which could have been traced to the NADRA record or the Medical Certificate Investigation Officer. Even the behavior of the board was not beyond the board. Because despite the recovery of the victim / abductor, he did not present it to a medical officer to ascertain his age, nor to seek arrest or arrest of the accused without the court's permission. He was allowed to accompany the fugitive accused and subsequently allowed to appeal against the acquittal and thereafter
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2009
