| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3524 2025 SLD 3524 = 2025 YLR 1301 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 69, 70 and 71 of 2023, decided on 7th January, 2025. (On appeal from the consolidated judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dated 23.06.2023, passed in Cr. Appeals Nos. 06, 07 and 09 of 2022).
Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J and Raza Ali Khan, J
Kamran Tariq Advocate for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023). Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023). Raha Inamullah Khan Advocate for Appelant (in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2023). Rashid Nadeem Butt, Advocate for Complainant/
Respondent (in all Appeals). Ahmed Saaed, Asstt. Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 69, 70 and 71 of 2023, decided on 7th January, 2025. (On appeal from the consolidated judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dated 23.06.2023, passed in Cr. Appeals Nos. 06, 07 and 09 of 2022).
Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J and Raza Ali Khan, J
Kamran Tariq Advocate for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023). Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023). Raha Inamullah Khan Advocate for Appelant (in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2023). Rashid Nadeem Butt, Advocate for Complainant/
Respondent (in all Appeals). Ahmed Saaed, Asstt. Advocate General for the State.
NAUMAN BUTT and 2 others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 341,342,377
Law: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985
Section: X,12
(a) Azad Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 341, 342 & 377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act (V of 1985), S. 12---Wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, unnatural offence, kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to unnatural lust--Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence--Accused were charged for committing unnatural offence with the complainant after abducting him---In the present case, the testimonies of the complainant, his father and the medical experts were found to be consistent, credible, and corroborative---Complainant's statement was substantiated by medical evidence, which confirmed the occurrence of unnatural sexual act, and by the testimony of other Medical Officer, which established the convict's ability to perform such acts---In cases of such nature, the testimony of the victim, if coherent and credible, was often sufficient for conviction---If was highly implausible for a victim, particularly a young individual, to falsely implicate someone in such a crime, given the immense personal and social stigma attached---Similarly, a father would not knowingly jeopardize his son's honor by making false accusation---Evidence, both oral and documentary, including the complainant's testimony, his father's corroborative statement and the medical reports conclusively established that convict "NB" committed sodomy with the complainant---Additionally convicts "AB" and "AD" facilitated the crime by acting as accomplices---Testimonies of the said four prosecution witnesses collectively confirmed the occurrence of the crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons, however, due to mitigating circumstances, conviction of accused "AD" and "AB" was upheld, however, their punishment was reduced to the sentence they had already undergone---Conviction of accused "NB" was upheld, however the sentences of life imprisonment imposed under S.12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 was reduced to imprisonment of ten years---Under S.377, A.P.C, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---Appeal was partly accepted with…