witness who is himself a victim of assaults by the assassins of his father and
saw the accused persons killing him and he testifies in details before the
Court about the occurrence and remains unshaken in the face of
cross-examination is a competent witness and he can be safely relied upon.
alias Farhad and another Vs. The State, 15BLD(AD) 163
requires that before examining a child of tender age as a witness the Court
should satisfy itself that the child is intellectually developed enough to
comprehend what he has seen and to give an intelligent account of it to the
Court. If the Court finds otherwise, it should decline to examine him as a
witness. On the other hand, if the child is sufficiently intelligent to
understand the questions put to him and he is capable of giving rational
answers to those questions, then his capacity to give evidence is on the same
footing as that of any other adult witness.
Haq Sikder Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD)364
6 and 8
provides that a boy under the age of 16 is a child. Section 6 provides that
there can be no joint trial of the child and the adult and as such no child is
to be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult. The child
must be tried separately in the Juvenile Court and not in the ordinary Court.
Only the Junveile Court is competent to take cognizance against the juvenile
State Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira, and others, 14BLD(HCD) 266
1980 A.I.R (SC) 1579 and 1986 A.I.R. (SC) 1773—Cited
6 and 66
Court failed to apply its judicial mind to find if appellant Shiplu, who
appears to below the age of 16 years at the time of trial is a child. This
makes the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court upon
appellant Shiplu illegal The impugned judgment and order are set aside for want
and another Vs The State, 17BLD (HCD)243
3 BLD (HCD) (1983)193—Cited
section 2(f) a ‘Child’ means a person under the age of 16 years and when used
with reference to a child sent to a certified institute or approved home or
committed by a Court to the custody of a relative or other fit person means
that he is a child during the whole period of his detention notwithstanding
that he may have attained the age of 16 years during that period.
of the Act provides that no child shall be charged with, or tried for, any
offence together with an adult. In the instant case the trial of the minor
accused appellant Kawsarun-nessa together with adult Bahera Khatun must be held
to be illegal. Such a trial is without jurisdiction and as such the impugned
order of conviction cannot be sustained.
Nessa and another Vs. The State, 15BLD(HCD)21
In view of
the finding by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the trial Court that
tie petitioners are not children within the meaning of section 2 sub-section
(1) of the Children Act, the High Court Division rejected the defence plea that
the petitioners are children and they cannot be tried by the ordinary criminal
Hossain & ors. Vs. The State & anT. 18BLD(HCD)407
is aged about 14 years and as such the trial of the appellant must be held by
the Juvenile Court according to section 5 of the Act and not by any other
Court. The trial held by Special Tribunal in respect of the appellant is
Shamim Vs The State, 19BLD
17BLD(1997)(HCD) 243:49 DLR53—relied upon
appellant has been in jail hajat since 1.6.1998 in association with other adult
criminals in contravention of section 49(1) of the Act and in such view of the
matter the prayer for bail deserves consideration.
Shamim Vs The State, 19BLD (HCD) 542
and determination of age
Section 66 of the Children Act it is for the Court to consider whether a person
charged with an offence and brought before it for trial appears to be a child
or not and then to proceed accordingly.
instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the age of the
petitioner could not be less then 16 years. Hç also noticed that there was sign
of interpolation in the registraiion card and the certificate issued from the
school. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely on those documents. From the
materials on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found it difficult to
hold the petitioner to be a child on the date of framing of charges. The
learned trial Court committed no illegality.
Munem Chowdhury alias Momen Vs. The State, 15BLD(AD)184
that when it appears to the Court that a person charged with an offence is a
child, the Court is required to direct an enquiry to ascertain the age of the
accused. When an accused is above 16 years of age at the time of framing of the
charge he is not entitled to get the benefit of the Children Act
Das Vs. The State 14BLD(AD) 218
that when an accused is brought before any criminal court for facing trial and
it appears that he is a child, the Court shall make an enquiry as to his age by
taking such evidence as may be forthcoming and shall record a finding thereon
stating his age as nearly as possible. When such a plea is taken by the
accused, a duty is cast upon a court to determine the age of the accused by
holding an enquiry.
Baktiadr Hossain Vs. The
State, 14 BLD (HCD)381.