| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 204 2018 SLD 204 2018 PCRLJ 12 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 85-M of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 02-03-2017
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Halim Khan for Appellant. Barrister Asad Hameed-ur-Rahman, State counsel and Muhammad Haleem Khan for
Respondents.
Cr.A. No. 85-M of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 02-03-2017
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Halim Khan for Appellant. Barrister Asad Hameed-ur-Rahman, State counsel and Muhammad Haleem Khan for
Respondents.
ABDUL HAQ
VS
THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATEGENERAL, DARUL QAZA, SWAT AND ANOTHER
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 376
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376--- Rape--- Appreciation of evidence--- Ocular account corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused committed sexual intercourse with a minor girl---Victim was complainant of the case, had narrated the occurrence in the mode and manner it had happened---Record showed that statement of minor-victim had been recorded after due satisfaction of the court---Victim had herself disclosed the name of the accused-appellant to have subjected her to sexual intercourse---Victim being minor child of the age of nine years could not malafidely charge the accused for such a heinous offence---Statement of the victim showed that she was a truthful witness---Victim was medically examined by Medical Officer, whose statement revealed that there had been vaginal and perennial tears that had already been stitched and the hymen had been perforated and injured---Medical Officer had been subjected to cross-examination at length by the defence but the fact had not been denied that in-fact complainant/victim was subjected to sexual intercourse in a very harsh manner---Defence had alleged that the Forensic Science Laboratory report in respect of presence of human semen in vagina was negative---Mere negative report in respect of non-availability of human semen in the vagina could not be considered ground for acquittal---Attending circumstances suggested that there were reasons to believe the perforation of the hymen as by the time minor might have being unable to resist extreme pain which had left the accused-appellant to have penetrated outside---Circumstances established that offence of rape had been committed with the complainant-victim---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Abdul Khaleque and others PLD 1960 SC 325; Hayat v. Jahangir and others PLD 2002 SC 590; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Rawato and another v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 333; Ibrar Hussain and others v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 605; Mulazim Hussain and 2 others v. The State 2007 YLR 723; Muhammad Shahid v. The State and others 2016 YLR 616 and Pervaiz Maseeh v. The State 2016 YLR 2611 ref. (b) Penal Code…
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