Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 2042 2025 SLD 2042 = 2025 YLR 367
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahalwalpur
Criminal Appeal No. 576-J-LD of 2017, heard on 8th October, 2024.
Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
Farooq Haider for Appellant. Najeeb Ullah Jatoi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

ALLAH WADHAYA---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 376(1)363,365(B)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376 & 363---Rape, kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged for kidnapping the daughter of complainant and committing rape with her---Record showed that the prosecution witness/victim, was cross-examined by the defence but her evidence relating to the fact of her being raped by the appellant had not been shaken at all---Moreover, it had been fully established by the statement of the prosecution witness/victim that the appellant raped her---Report of Forensic Science Agency, according to which the DNA Profile of the appellant was found present on the shalwar of victim, also lent support to the charge of rape against the appellant---Evidence of Medical Officer also fully supported the statement of victim that she was raped by the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused to the extent of committing rape with the victim, however due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant under S.376(1), P.P.C. was reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment of ten years---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence.(b) Criminal trial-------Discrepancies and improvements in the statement of witnesses---Scope---In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence---Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon---However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376, 365-B & 363---Rape, kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence--Abduction of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register