| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4789 = 2026 SLD 4789 = 2026 PLJ 266 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Crl. A. No. 752-J of 2018
Presented By: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
Prince Rehan Iftikhar Sheikh, Advocate with Appellant. Mr. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. M/s. Hafiz Muhammad Habib Ullah Raan and Qaisar Abbas, Advocates for Complainant. Date of hearing: 29.1.2026.
Crl. A. No. 752-J of 2018
Presented By: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
Prince Rehan Iftikhar Sheikh, Advocate with Appellant. Mr. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. M/s. Hafiz Muhammad Habib Ullah Raan and Qaisar Abbas, Advocates for Complainant. Date of hearing: 29.1.2026.
HASSAN--Appellant
VERSUS
STATE--Respondent
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 376(3)
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Testimony of victim--The law is very clear that in sexual offenses, testimony of victim, if it is confidence-inspiring, requires no further corroboration to sustain a conviction. [P. 269] A PLD 2021 SC 550. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Testimony of prosecutix--Ocular account--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Offence of rape with minor--The ocular account of prosecution case against appellant has found unimpeachable fortification through medical evidence, most notably positive findings contained in Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Report issued by Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore--This scientific corroboration, when viewed in juxtaposition with clinical findings, leaves no room for doubt that nexus between appellant and commission of offense has been established to hilt. [P. 270] B PLD 2021 SC 550. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Offence of rape with minor--Ocular account--Testimony of victim--Medical evidence--DNA report was positive--The prosecution’s case is found to be primarily anchored by a promptly lodged FIR, registered within short span of just two hours of occurrence, thereby precluding any hypothesis of fabrication or deliberated consultation--Minor victim’s evidence is entirely probable, natural and trustworthy as she has narrated with lucidity whole incident about commission of offence against her by appellant and there exists no reason, much less compelling reasons, toβ¦