Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 3797 2006 SLD 3797 2006 PCRLJ 790
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 179-L of 2003, decided on 27th May, 2004. Date of hearing: 25th May, 2004.
SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, JUSTICE
Mazhar Hussain Tahir for Appellant. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Bharwana for the Complainant. Raja Abdul Rehman, A.A.G. assisted by Miss Anila Bano for the State.

ISHTIAQ ALIAS SHAQU --Appellant

VS

THE State --Respondent

Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 12

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 377

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)--- ----S. 12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377---Appreciation of evidence---Reduction in sentence---Main thrust of defence was to impeach the character of complainant who was grandfather of victim boy, by showing him to be a professional litigant who would involve innocent persons in false cases, which always ended in compromise after he obtained monetary benefits, but no evidence, whatsoever was brought on record to support the plea regarding such character of complainant---Victim at the time of occurrence, was aged about 11 years and was a competent witness to depose about alleged occurrence---Victim in his testimony had given details of reprehensible occurrence stating how accused had forcibly deboarded him from his donkey cart and dragged him for about one acre and then at pistol point committed sodomy with him---Victim stood the test of cross-examination successfully and gave consistent and cogent replies to the searching questions by the defence---No reason could be spelt out from the record to disbelieve his testimony---Presence of complainant/grandfather of victim, at the spot of occurrence, was natural and his testimony also inspired confidence and had lent corroboration to the statement of victim---Statement of doctor who medically examined the victim, coupled with positive report of Chemical Examiner had lent further support and corroboration to the testimony of victim---Accused had taken up wholly artificial and concocted plea in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. which plea was worth little consideration---Accused neither had led defence evidence nor had entered the witness-box to depose on oath in disproof of prosecution allegations---Accused had absconded after occurrence and remained untraceable for more than six months---Such prolonged "ibscondence of accused, was also a factor to reckon with for holding him guilty---Trial Court had taken pains to appreciate evidence on record in a careful manner---Trial Court had neither misread nor omitted from consideration any material piece of evidence and conclusions drawn by it from the evidence/material on record, were fully…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492