Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 376(1)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of five days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Admittedly, complainant was not the eye-witness of occurrence who reported the matter with the delay of five days on 14.11.2016 and stated that victim did not inform him about the occurrence from her cell phone on the same day---Though the complainant in his statement before the Court stated to have reported the matter through an application on 12.11.2016 which by itself was after three days of the occurrence however, FIR was further delayed for two days and registered on 14.11.2016---In any manner there was apparent delay in reporting the matter to the police and lodgment of the FIR and no explanation whatsoever was available on the record for such delay---Thus, the possibility of due deliberation and consultation by the complainant before reporting the occurrence to the police could not be ruled out of consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Farman Ahmad v. Muhammad Inayat and others 2007 SCMR 1825 rel.

 (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Complainant claimed production of broken string, shirt and torn Shalwar of victim before the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer controverted such fact by stating that the complainant or the victim did not produce the clothes and broken string---Investigating Officer did not ask the complainant and the victim to produce the clothes and the broken string---Prosecution leveled allegation against two accused persons---Place of occurrence was reportedly house of co-accused, and allegation against her of guarding the act of rape, was not possible when it was admitted by the witnesses that parents and kids of co-accused were residing in the same house---Said house consisted of only one room which was at a distance of 35 to 40 feet and 5/7 karams from main gate, which was the reason Investigating Officer found co-accused not involved in the commission of offence, therefore, she was acquitted after trial---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

 (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Place of occurrence was disputed because alleged eye-witnesses could not describe or explain it clearly when they deposed that they did not remember that cots were lying in the room and conceded that they did not see any other house-hold articles in the room where alleged occurrence took place---Place of occurrence was further disputed when Investigating Officer did not collect anything incriminating from that place and though witnesses claimed hearing of hue and cry of victim when they reached near the shop of "GB" which was opened yet said "GB" whose workshop was shown adjacent to the house of occurrence was not associated with the investigation nor produced during the trial--From the narration of witnesses, it could safely be held that neither they were present at the place of occurrence nor in any manner witnessed the occurrence--Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.