Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3211 2016 SLD 3211 2016 MLD 1352
Lahore High Court
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 928 OF 2009, HEARD ON 23RD NOVEMBER, 2015. Date OF HEARING: 23RD NOVEMBER, 2015
SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE
Muhammad Ikram Ullah Sundrana for Appellant. Abdul Jabbar Dogar, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.

NASEER AHMAD - --Appellant

VS

THE STATE - --Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 376 & 511 --------- -Rape; attempt to commit offence --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Benefit of doubt --------- Complainant not being the eye-witness --------- Effect --------- Explanation for delay in lodging FIR was unsatisfactory --------- Recovery, absence of --------- Trial Court convicted the accused for attempting to commit rape and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years along with payment of fine --------- Alleged incident had been reported with delay of seven days without any satisfactory explanation --------- Reason given for the delay by the complainant, that respectables of the area had intervened and assured that the accused would pray and seek pardon, was improbable as none of the respectables had been produced before the police or Trial Court --------- Complainant had, therefore, got lodged the FIR with due deliberations and consultations --------- Complainant himself was not the eye-witness of the occurrence as per his application, which was the basis for registration of the FIR; hence, evidence of the complainant was of no avail --------- Victim of rape had made dishonest improvements before Trial Court to strengthen the prosecution case --------- Evidence of the victim was, therefore, not reliable --------- Eye-witness alleged that she was washing utensils in the courtyard of the house, when the accused came and went straight to the room of the victim and attempted to commit rape --------- Presence of said eye-witness at the place of occurrence was doubtful for the reasons that the complainant had deposed that if someone entered the said room, he could be seen by person sitting in the courtyard --------- Said eye-witness also alleged that the accused had given her fist blows, but she had not been medically examined --------- Statement of said eye-witness was, therefore, also not worth reliance --------- Last worn clothes of the victim had not been produced before Investigating Officer on the first day of occurrence when he visited the place of occurrence --------- Investigating Officer had also deposed that the clothes were of common nature --------- Said piece…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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