| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 3201 2022 SLD 3201 2022 PCRLJ 1268 |
Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 2012, heard on 8th September, 2021.
ALI ZIA BAJWA, J
Ghulam Farid Gurmani for Appellant. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
IRFAN alias IMRAN alias KADU
VS
The STATE and another
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 376
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the time and place of occurrence was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing rape with the mentally retarded daughter of the complainant---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by maternal uncle and cousin of the complainant---Both the said witnesses were related inter-se, as well as to the complainant and victim---In that background, their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and response shown by them on hearing the hue and cry raised by the victim, as well as their reaction to rescue the victim and catch hold of the perpetrator, when admittedly he was not armed with any firearm weapon, was of pivotal importance---Statements of the said witnesses were at variance qua their reaction on attracting to the place of occurrence and seeing the accused allegedly in naked condition---One of the witnesses claimed that they put effort to apprehend the accused, however, he fled away---Another important aspect of the case was that although both the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the victim but on reaching house of the complainant, they opted to wait for his return and didn’t report the matter to the police promptly---Record did not disclose whether they had attempted to make any effort whatsoever to establish contact with the complainant through phone to inform him about such a shocking occurrence---Both the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent with regard to distance between the place of occurrence and house of the victim---All the said facts when taken conjointly created dents with regard to presence of the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence as claimed by them---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for…
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