| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2946 2013 SLD 2946 2013 YLR 2817 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 218, 211 and 209 of 2010, heard on 11th April, 2013
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J
Malik Waheed Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2010). Sh. Muhammad Yaqoob for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2010). Aftab Ahmad for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2010). Mirza Muhammad Usman, Deputy Prosecutor-General
Criminal Appeals Nos. 218, 211 and 209 of 2010, heard on 11th April, 2013
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J
Malik Waheed Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2010). Sh. Muhammad Yaqoob for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2010). Aftab Ahmad for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2010). Mirza Muhammad Usman, Deputy Prosecutor-General
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 367-A & 377---Abducting for committing sodomy, unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of eleven days in registration of F.I.R., had not properly been explained by the prosecution which fact was shrouded in mystery as to why the victim kept mum for eleven days---Victim had not identified the place of alleged occurrence, during investigation of the case---Victim during trial, had himself admitted that he voluntarily went with accused while in his senses---Said part of the statement of the victim, was enough to set aside the conviction handed down to accused under S.367-A, P.P.C.---Medico-legal certificate of the victim showed no marks of violence on the part of his body, except a small laceration on anus---According to the victim, in the first instance an unknown person committed sodomy with him, but the prosecution failed to establish the identity of said unknown person---Victim was medically examined after eleven days of the occurrence, but report of Chemical Examiner regarding the swabs taken from the anus of the victim was positive, which was against the principles of medical Jurisprudence as the semen does wash away with the passage of time---Victim had passed stool several times during that period---Such piece of evidence had been manoeuvred by the prosecution to prove the allegation levelled against accused persons---Accused could not be sentenced solely on the opinion of the Doctor without there being any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence produced by the prosecution which was missing in the case---No report of semen grouping was procured by the prosecution or produced during the trial, which was a valid piece of evidence in such like cases, when there were allegations against more than one person of committing sodomy with the victim---Clothes of the victim were never produced before the Investigating Officer or before the Trial Court---Apart from the victim, no other eye-witness of the occurrence was available and there was no corroboration of the statement of the victim which could be taken into conclusion---Neither the naked photograph of the victim were recovered, nor they…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492