| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3246 2025 SLD 3246 = 2025 SHC 512 |
Criminal Appeal No.S-38 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. S-39 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. S-40 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No. S-41 of 2024
Ali Haider ‘Ada’,J
Through Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate. Through Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate. Through Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Khokhar Advocate. Through Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo Advocate.
The Complainant Through Mr. Munwar Ali Shaikh advocate.
VERSUS
The State Though Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, Deputy Prosecutor General.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 365-B,148,149
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 164,342,493-A,382-B
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court of Khairpur for offences under sections 365-B, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) related to the abduction of Gul Bano. The FIR was lodged after 15 days delay, with the complainant alleging forcible abduction by the accused. However, material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, delays in FIR registration and recording of the alleged victim’s statement, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the victim’s own judicial affidavits affirming her free will marriage with one accused, Ashiq Hussain, cast serious doubts on the prosecution’s case. The investigation lacked proactive measures like tracing call records despite having mobile numbers. The victim herself had sought protection from her family in court, weakening the prosecution's claim of coercion. The prosecution failed to challenge the marital validity legally, indicating improper application of abduction laws. The principle of benefit of doubt was invoked due to the chain of inconsistencies, resulting in the acquittal of all accused.
Core Points
- FIR lodged with 15 days unexplained delay.
- Contradictions in identification of accused among victim, complainant, and witnesses.
- Victim testified marriage with accused Ashiq Hussain was of her own free will.
- Victim filed constitutional petition in court against her father and brother alleging harassment.
- No timely or proactive police investigation such as mobile tracking despite possession of accused’s mobile numbers.
- Delay in recording victim’s Section 164 Cr.PC statement (5 days after police appearance).
- Material contradiction between FIR allegation of woman accomplice and victim’s testimony denying presence of any woman abductors.
- Absence of challenge to validity of Nikah legally; improper use of Section 365-B PPC instead of Section 493-A PPC.
- Established legal principle that benefit of doubt must be given if prosecution case is doubtful.
- Accused acquitted accordingly.
Law and Sections Table
| Law / Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 365-B, PPC | Kidnapping or abducting a woman with intent to compel her to marry against her will or for illicit intercourse; punishable with life imprisonment and fine. |
| Section 148, PPC | Rioting, punishable with imprisonment and/or fine. |
| Section 149, PPC | Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object of assembly. |
| Section 164, Cr.P.C. | Magistrate's recording of statement, especially important in cases of confession, victim statements, etc. |
| Section 342, Cr.P.C. | Recording of accused’s statement after prosecution evidence is complete. |
| Section 493-A, PPC | Causing a woman to believe she is lawfully married to a man by deceit, punishable with imprisonment and fine. |
| Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. | Allows benefit of the accused in cases of delayed compensation payment, substituting imprisonment. |
J U D G M E N T.