Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 6155 2024 SLD 6155 = 2024 PCRLJ 1048
Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench
Criminal Appeal No.(s)-67 of 2023, decided on 13th November, 2023.
Before Zaheer-ud-Din Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ.
Muhammad Saleem Lashari and Khalid Khan Baloch for Appellant. Muhammad Rasheed for the Complainant. Jamil Akhtar Gajani, Additional Prosecutor General (APG) for the State.

IMRAN---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE through Prosecutor General---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 376,377B

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 164,342

(a)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376 & 377-B---Rape, unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged that they took the minor daughter of the complainant in a rickshaw and then raped her--Record showed that the testimony of complainant was not direct, and she stated what she was told by the victim---Testimony of victim clearly showed that she was not forcibly made to sit in the rickshaw driven by witness---According to victim, the accused and proclaimed offender were known to her and she willingly sat with them and proceeded to the crime scene---Place from where victim sat in the rickshaw was a populated area, but no one had been associated as witness--Rickshaw driver/witness denied to identify the accused before the Court---During cross-examination, said witness admitted that he recorded the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, before Judicial Magistrate---Said witness denied that he had made statement before Judicial Magistrate, wherein he had stated that accused present before the Court boarded in his rickshaw---Statement of said witness had neither been confronted with his previous statement made before the Police and Judicial Magistrate nor such part of his statement was confronted by the Investigating Officer, thus previous statement could not be taken into account---Story narrated by rickshaw driver beliedvictim and created doubt in the prosecution version--Moreover, there was also delay of four days in lodging the FIR which casted doubt and gave rise to deliberation and consultation, creating doubt in the ocular account--Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the indictment--Appeal was accordingly allowed.(b)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376 & 377-B---Rape, unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged that they took the minor daughter of the complainant in a rickshaw and then raped her--Testimony of Medico-Legal Officer showed that no signs of force were applied on the victim rather it mentioned about old defloration of hymen, meaning…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register