| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 460 2015 SLD 460 2015 PCRLJ 197 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2011, heard on 25th May, 2013. DATE of hearing: 24th May, 2013
CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant. M. Usman, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Aslam, S.-I. with record
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2011, heard on 25th May, 2013. DATE of hearing: 24th May, 2013
CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant. M. Usman, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Aslam, S.-I. with record
GHULAM HUSSAIN
VS
The STATE and others
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 365-B,496-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B & 496-A---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against the accused was that he along with co-accused abducted the daughter of the complainant for marriage---Trial Court amended the charge under S.496-A, P.P.C. and convicted the accused to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000---Abductee left the house of her parents with her own free consent and according to her statement she had come to know after short time that she was being taken away to another city but during such long journey she never resisted or informed anyone about her abduction at the Toll Plaza or the police pickets---No evidence on the record existed that the abductee was compelled to contract marriage---Accused only proposed her to marry which she refused and no element of force had been used against the abductee who while appearing in the witness box made dishonest improvements to bring the case in line with the prosecution story---Nothing was on the record to suggest that the accused had intention to outrage the modesty of victim or he committed sexual intercourse with her---No plausible explanation existed on the record for not making statement to the police when abductee returned or on the next day---Abductee and complainant kept silent for 6 days and she remained in the custody of her father and her statements before the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate were nothing but afterthought and result of due deliberation---Complainant made several dishonest improvements in his statement while appearing in the witness box and the Trial Court had rightly observed that the evidence of the complainant and victim was not trustworthy---Complainant himself negated the entire prosecution story by moving application for exonerating the co-accused---Testimony of the complainant was unbelievable as he claimed to be accompanied by his son and they had seen the accused and the co-accused taking away the abductee---Trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence under S. 365-B, P.P.C. was not made out but the accused was convicted under S.496-A, P.P.C. which was attracted only…
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