376, PPC - Judgements

Section 376, PPC - Judgements

376. Punishment for rape. (1) Whoever commits rape shall be punished with death or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years or more than twenty five years.

__ [or for imprisonment for the remainder period of his natural life] and shall also be liable to fine.

[(1A) Whoever commits an offence punishable under subsection (1) or subsection (2) or section 377 or section 377B and in the course of such commission causes any hurt punishable as an offence under section 333, section 335, clauses (iv), (v) and (vi) of subsection (3) of section 337, section 337C, clauses (v) and (vi) of section 337F shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and fine.]

2(2)[* * * * * * *]]

3[(3) Whoever commits rape of a minor or a person with mental or physical disability shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and fine.

(4) Whoever being a public servant including a police officer, medical officer or jailor, taking advantage of his official position, commits rape shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and fine.]

•| ⊱ Judgements ⊰ |•

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-B & 376---Abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account furnished by victim---Victim sole eyewitness of the occurrence---Sufficient for conviction---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the complainant and raped her, and accused also prepared her nude pictures for blackmailing---Ocular account was furnished by victim/complainant alone, whereas, statement of father of the victim was about post occurrence events---In her examination-in-chief the victim reiterated the story as had been set out in the complaint/FIR and deposed about step by step events in the same sequence---Complainant was subjected to cross-examination at sufficient length but nothing damaging to the prosecution or favourable to the defence could be elicited from her mouth---By tenor of cross-examination the defence tried to bring on record that at one point of time the victim and the accused/appellant were residing in the same village and parents of the accused/appellant as well as victim had friendly relations, thus they both i.e. accused/appellant and the victim, were known to each other---Instead of lending any support to the defence, the admission of the victim on above aspects went on to strengthen the prosecution's stance as it was the case of prosecution itself that because of such friendly relations the accused/appellant used to visit the house of the victim's parents along with co-accused, with whom the victim also developed relations and out of such linkage she left the house along with co-accused to make some purchases and fell prey to nefarious activity by the accused/appellant---Since the statement of the victim, had been found to be worthy of credence, confidence inspiring, credible and irrefutable, therefore, even if she was a sole witness, her statement could safely be made basis to record conviction---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-B & 376---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 71 & 139---Abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Nude pictures---Legal requirements for using such pictures as evidence for convicting accused---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the complainant and raped her, and accused also prepared her nude pictures for blackmailing---Audio/video clip including snaps/ photographs as evidence maintained a dual character in the law of evidence; it is termed as document as well as a material thing (physical evidence), also known as real evidence---Snaps/ photographs do carry information that includes expression, gestures, voice and video, therefore, such clips/snaps are sought to be produced before the Court to prove the 'information' contained in it as evidence of facts recorded therein and oral account of which is to be spoken by a witness and not by the document alone---While as material thing it is to be produced for the inspection of Court---Principles of evidence relating to admissibility of documents are fully applicable on such type of evidence---Permission and sanction of law to bring on record evidence if it is in the form of document is regulated under Art.139 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Said Article in the light of illustration therein authorizes the Court to ask, when any witness is making statement about a fact, to support his contention with any document if such fact is incorporated therein---Room for such discretion of Court is obviously reflective of farsighted wisdom of legislature to cater to the requirement of an emerging need of evidence in a particular situation for the purpose of corroboration to fortify or strengthen the deposition---Documentary evidence runs over or defeats the oral evidence under the maxim "res ipsa loquitor"---Second status of such evidence is of material thing (physical evidence) or oral evidence which is produced for the inspection of Court as ordained in second proviso to Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---In the present case pictures were put to the accused/appellant during his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., for seeking his explanation but neither he challenged such pictures in any manner during cross-examination nor gave any explanation in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Silence of the accused/appellant over such an important factor connoted that there was nothing to defend against such nude pictures, thus the requirement of law for using these snaps/pictures was completed and those could safely be used as evidence---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-B & 376---Abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one and half month in lodging the FIR---Inconsequential---Victim trying to protect her honour and reputation and that of her family---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the complainant and raped her, and accused also prepared her nude pictures for blackmailing---In this case, undoubtedly, the FIR was registered after almost one and half month of the crime having been committed---However, such delay in reporting the matter to the police was immaterial in the sense that throughout it had been the stance of the victim that her nude pictures were taken by the accused/appellant, she was blackmailed and she fell victim number of times during her captivity under such pressure and fear, therefore, she kept mum in order to save her and the family honour---When nude pictures of victim were thrown in her house and the matter stood disclosed to family members, she narrated the whole occurrence---Thus, victim being an educated lady with qualification of MA English had definitely been thinking about her family honour as well as her social and practical life before reporting the matter to police---Even otherwise, the fact that the modesty of a virgin girl was violated by sexual assault explained the apprehension of the victim and her family in approaching the police immediately---Delay in reporting the crime to the police in respect of an offence involving a person's honour and reputation which society may view unsympathetically could play on the minds of a victim and her family and deter them to go to the police---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-B & 376---Abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Medical officer not cross-examined---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the complainant and raped her, and accused also prepared her nude pictures for blackmailing---Though the medical evidence did not contain any fact that sexual act was committed with the victim by force but it was clear from the statement of victim that she was under the effect of intoxication as well as fear of nude pictures, therefore, in either of the situations, she could not resist the act of rape---Otherwise, of course the said act of intercourse was against the will and consent of victim, which was the requirement of S.375, P.P.C---During medical examination Woman Medical Officer also found hymen of victim as old torn, though she was unmarried but Medical Officer was not even cross-examined by the defence about any fact contained in Medico-Legal Report---Moreover, it was in the evidence that delayed Medico-Legal Examination was due to the reason that victim was terrified---Prosecution had also produced Medical Officer who had examined the accused/appellant and found him potent to perform sexual act; his observations in that respect were recorded in Medico-Legal Report, therefore, such examination was also a relevant fact showing ability of accused/appellant to commit rape with the victim---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-B & 376---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 27 & 68---Abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Bad character of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused kidnapped the complainant and raped her, and accused also prepared her nude pictures for blackmailing---Bad character of accused in criminal cases was not relevant under Art.68 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Perusal of evidence showed that defence itself conceded the involvement of the appellant in offence of dacoity while putting question upon the victim during her cross-examination, which turned attention to Art.27 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dealing with relevancy of facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling---In the evidence of that case facts were brought on record that the appellant had affiliation with victim since her childhood and also wanted to marry her, therefore what he had done could not be regarded as innocent mistake rather his state of mind and bodily feeling made him to commit such a heinous offence---Thus, inclination and attraction of accused towards victim was a relevant fact in the case which could safely be read against him for his intention to commit act of rape and preparation of nude pictures---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 189 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : Amani Rome

Side Opponent : State

S. 376---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), S. 53---Rape, sexual abuse---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence corroborating ocular account---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of complainant---Medical evidence was furnished by Medical Officer, who examined the victim at 06:50 pm on 07.07.2017, the day the incident occurred---Medical Officer recorded that at the time of her examination, the victim was conscious and she was weeping due to severe vaginal pain---Opinion of the Medical Officer was that forceful intercourse was done with the victim---Such findings left no doubt whatsoever that the victim was raped---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt that the accused raped the victim---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Allah Wadhaya

Side Opponent : State

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.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Allah Wadhaya

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376 & 363---Rape, kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Accused was charged for kidnapping the daughter of complainant and committing rape with her---Record showed that the appellant suffered the rigours of a protracted trial and it had also been observed that it seemed likely that the appellant would have mended his conduct in those years---Counsel for the appellant on appellant's instructions, had earnestly and humbly prayed that the appellant may be given a chance to rehabilitate---Appellant was the sole earner in his family and his incarceration for an extended period would result in cutting off the lifeline available to his family---No proof was available that the appellant was a man of means---As such, the case of the appellant called for a lenient view in the matter of the quantum of sentence awarded to him under S.376(1), P.P.C.---Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under S.376(1), P.P.C., 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.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 378 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Waseem

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377B & 511---Attempted rape---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he attempted to commit sodomy with the minor son of the complainant---Accused/petitioner was named in the FIR with specific role of making an attempt to commit sodomy with minor son of complainant---As per contents of the FIR, the victim was rescued after raising an uproar, which drew the attention of the witnesses at the spot---Victim, in the instant case, had fully implicated the accused/petitioner in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C on the day of occurrence and also ascribed accused/petitioner specific role of attempting to commit sodomy with him in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Contents of FIR in addition to the statement of the minor victim recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, when taken on their face value, ex facie linked the accused/petitioner with the commission of crime falling within the purview of S.377B, P.P.C entailing the punishment that fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Moreover, there existed reasonable grounds for believing that accused/ petitioner had committed an offence falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(1) of Cr.P.C.---No case of post arrest bail at all was made out---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Allah Wadhaya

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376, 365-B & 363---Rape, kidnapping---Appreciation of evidence---Abduction of the victim not established---Accused was charged for kidnapping the daughter of complainant and committing rape with her---Prosecution witness/victim had successfully evidenced her credibility, therefore the trial Court was quite justified to rely on her while finding the appellant guilty---Intention of the accused was the basis and the gravamen of an offence under S.376, P.P.C.---Consequently, there was no hesitation in holding that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under S.376(1), P.P.C.---With regard to the conviction of the appellant under S.365-B P.P.C., the prosecution could not prove the said charge against the appellant---Trial Court itself rejected the statement of the prosecution witness who had stated that on 23.10.2014 at about 08.00 a.m. he had seen the appellant abducting, the victim---According to the statement of victim, when she was abducted by the appellant, said witness was not present at the said time and place---Furthermore, said witness, though being very closely related to victim, made no effort either to stop the abduction of victim or even to follow the appellant who was taking away the victim---No one from the locality supported the said charge of abduction levelled against the appellant---Trial Court also observed that complainant was not a witness of the said abduction---With regard to the part of the statement of victim that she was abducted by the appellant, the same was doubtful and contradictory to the attending circumstances---Therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under S.365-B, P.P.C.---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.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Abdul Basit

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 189 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : Amani Rome

Side Opponent : State

S. 376---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), S. 53---Rape, sexual abuse---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of complainant---Ocular account had been furnished by victim, her father and uncle---Complainant narrated the whole story of the case as mentioned in the FIR---Victim, being a minor girl of 09 years, was first subjected to rationality test by the trial Court---As many as 09 questions were asked from her she successfully replied to all the questions, including most particularly, giving evidence as to the purpose of her presence in the Court---Victim narrated the entire episode of the occurrence in her statement---Closer analysis of the cross-examination clearly manifested that the defence was not successful in showing that the statement of the victim was prompted by influence or duress and was not confidence inspiring---In that respect, victim's examination-in-chief appeared to be categorical in spelling out the event in all its natural details---More importantly, the victim remained firm and steadfast during her cross-examination---Victim had given the evidence which was evidence in fact and not something extraneous or something that her grandmother told her to state in her evidence---Court was at loss to find something that might provide leverage to the defence---Uncle of the victim/witness was not given a tough time during cross-examination---Said witness fully restated in his cross-examination that he had seen the victim and the appellant near the water hand pump at about 12:00 noon, a short time before the incident---Said witness recollected that even in his police statement he had deposed that he had seen the appellant standing near the water pump---Admission of said witness that the police recorded his statement after four days of the occurrence, was not helpful to the defence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt that the accused raped the victim---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1341 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Muhammad Hassan

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 23 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 392, 376(ii), 376(iii)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., robbery, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, act of terrorism---Application for transfer of case from anti-terrorism court to the ordinary court was dismissed---Validity---Complainant lodged FIR alleging that accused persons kidnapped her along with her daughter, committed rape with them, snatched mobile phone and hard cash and ran away---As per contents of the FIR, there was no demand of property (movable or immovable) valuable security or compelling of the complainant or her daughter to comply with any other demand in cash or otherwise---Moreover, it was not the case of the prosecution that the assailants demanded some money and upon their failure put them in illegal confinement and committed Zina-bil-jabr---Under S. 365-A, P.P.C, the elements of extortion from the person or kidnapping or abducting for the purpose of any property movable or immovable, valuable security or other demand, whether cash or otherwise for obtaining release of any kidnapped or abducted person were made---Such elements were not available in the FIR, therefore, S.365-A, P.P.C, would not be attracted---In the instant case, there was no demand of ransom of cash either from the complainant or her relative---Irrational interpretation of the word "any other demand" by extending it to compel a woman for a sexual intercourse could not be adopted by the High Court particularly when offence under S. 365-B, P.P.C., and S. 376, P.P.C., exclusively deal with the offence of rape; sexual intercourse with a woman against her will by putting her under fear of death, etc.---Criminal revision for transfer of case to an ordinary court was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Istikhar alias Iftikhar

Side Opponent : State

S. 376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR with promptitude---Scope---Accused was charged for committing Zina-bil-jabr with the minor daughter of the complainant---Incident had taken place on 27.03.2018 at about 12:40 noon and the crime report was lodged on the same day at 03:45 p.m. i.e. within almost three hours of the occurrence---Said promptness in lodging the crime report not only confirmed presence of the eye witnesses at the spot but also excluded every hypothesis of deliberation, consultation and fabrication prior to the registration of the case---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PLD 170 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : FAQEER MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 23, 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364-A, 302, 376, 201, 311, 109 & 34---Rape and murder of a minor girl---Not terrorism---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---According to the case of prosecution, baby girl aged about 6 years left home and did not return---During investigation, it transpired that she was subjected to rape and murdered by the accused persons---Investigation Officer submitted challan against them before the Anti-Terrorism Court---Application under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, moved by the accused persons before the Anti-Terrorism (Trial) Court to transfer the case to regular Court was dismissed while holding that Anti-Terrorism Court had the jurisdiction to try the present case---Contention of the applicant/accused was that though the case was of gang rape with a minor girl, but alleged offence had not created terror in the society and mere gravity of an offence did not provide a valid yardstick for branding the act as terrorism---Plea of the complainant was that accused had committed gang rape with baby girl aged about 06 years and thereafter, committed her murder which offence had created terror in the society---Validity---From perusal of relevant material collected during investigation, it transpired that element of terrorism was missing in the present case---A minor girl was subjected to rape by accused persons and murdered---No doubt, offence was grave and brutal in nature but motivation was personal and private---In the offences of terrorism, purpose is to destabilize the society at large, therefore, keeping in view the definition of "terrorism" contained in S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, act of the applicant/ accused did not qualify as an act of terrorism, thus, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try present case under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997---High Court set-aside the impugned order, being not sustainable under the law, and directed Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction in the case---Revision Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Place of occurrence, of offence not proved---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Though it was the prosecution case that accused took the victim from the school under the pretext that her mother being indisposed was being treated in the house of co-accused, but Investigating Officer did not join into investigation any Chowkidar, teacher, student or any other person from the school where victim was teaching on the day of occurrence---Investigating Officer also did not join "GB" owner of adjacent workshop or any labourer working there---Moreover, it was in evidence that a petrol-pump was situated just opposite to the place of occurrence but Investigating Officer did not record statement of any person from the said petrol pump, who could have seen the victim going with the accused, or approaching of witnesses at the crime scene later---Thus, prosecution could not prove the place of occurrence where rape was committed---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAHBAZ

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376 & 293---Gang rape with a minor, sale etc., of obscene objects to young person---Bail, refusal of---Victim of the case supported case of the prosecution against the petitioner (accused) through her statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Victim clearly levelled allegation of rape against the petitioner as well as his co-accused through her statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---USB containing video of the alleged act had also been secured during investigation of the case and allegation levelled against the petitioner had been established after thorough investigation---Any reason for false implication of the petitioner in the case with such heinous allegation which had stigmatized life of the victim as well as honor of her family could not be referred to by counsel for the petitioner---Prima facie, reasonable grounds were available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences and punishment of offence of rape with minor attracted the prohibition contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.---Persons involved in such like activities did not deserve any leniency rather they were liable to be dealt with iron hands in order to curb such like nefarious activities, falling in moral turpitude, from the society---Therefore, no case for grant of post arrest bail to the petitioner was made out---Bail petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muzamil

Side Opponent : State

Sched. I, Entries Nos. 3 & 4---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376(2), 506-B & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Rape, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---Jurisdiction of Special Court---Scope---Accused were charged for committing rape with a minor girl---In the present case, admitted position was that the alleged offence was not committed for ransom, hence, the same did not fall within the Scheduled Offences of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("Act, 1997") and thus, the same was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Alleged offence of rape under S. 376(2), P.P.C, though was of serious and brutal nature, yet being not included in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act, 1997, was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court as a heinous offence---Alleged offence under S.376(2), P.P.C., did not even fall within the jurisdiction of regular Court under the Code in view of promulgation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 ("Act of 2021"), which came into force on 03.12.2021 to ensure expeditious redressal of rape and sexual abuse crimes in respect of women and children through special investigation teams and Special Courts providing for efficacious procedures, speedy trial, evidence and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto---Under Entries Nos.3 & 4 of the Schedule-I of the Act, 2021, offences under Ss. 21 and 22 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016; the offences under the Act of 1997, which are committed along with the offences in the said Schedule and under Entry No.1 of the Schedule-II of the Act, an offence under S.376, P.P.C., were Scheduled Offences of the Act of 2021 and were triable by the Special Court established under the said Act---As per FIR, the alleged offence was committed on 12.01.2021---Charge was framed by the Trial Court on 04.06.2021---Special Courts under the Act of 2021 were notified in the Province of Sindh on 11.10.2022---Impugned judgment was passed on 19.01.2023---Meaning thereby, that on the day of notification of Special Courts under the Act of 2021, the trial of Scheduled Offence of the Act of 2021 was pending in the Anti-Terrorism Court, which ought to have been transferred to the Special Court having jurisdiction under the Act of 2021, which had the territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence as per notification---Since the trial Court i.e. Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the case; the accused could not be tried, convicted and sentenced by it---Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded under the impugned judgment was set-aside with direction to Trial Court to transfer the case to Special Court established and notified under the Act of 2021, having territorial jurisdiction for trial in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed in the said terms.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : Imran

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376 & 377-B---Rape, unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged that they took the minor daughter of the complainant in a rickshaw and then raped her---Record showed that the testimony of complainant was not direct, and she stated what she was told by the victim---Testimony of victim clearly showed that she was not forcibly made to sit in the rickshaw driven by witness---According to victim, the accused and proclaimed offender were known to her and she willingly sat with them and proceeded to the crime scene---Place from where victim sat in the rickshaw was a populated area, but no one had been associated as witness---Rickshaw driver/witness denied to identify the accused before the Court---During cross-examination, said witness admitted that he recorded the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, before Judicial Magistrate---Said witness denied that he had made statement before Judicial Magistrate, wherein he had stated that accused present before the Court boarded in his rickshaw---Statement of said witness had neither been confronted with his previous statement made before the Police and Judicial Magistrate nor such part of his statement was confronted by the Investigating Officer, thus previous statement could not be taken into account---Story narrated by rickshaw driver beliedvictim and created doubt in the prosecution version---Moreover, there was also delay of four days in lodging the FIR which casted doubt and gave rise to deliberation and consultation, creating doubt in the ocular account---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the indictment---Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Haresh Kumar

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376, 114, 34 & 496-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Rape, abettor present when offence is committed, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Sentence, reduction in---Case of fornication instead of rape---Accused was charged for forcibly committing rape with the daughter of the complainant---Admittedly, the only eye-witness of the incident was the victim herself and her mother---Alleged victim had deposed in her evidence that while she was discharging urine the accused allegedly entered in the washroom and committed rape with her, and when her mother came the accused decamped from the scene---Evidence of victim as well as her mother did not show that accused had caused any injury or used force upon the victim nor the victim as well as her mother or any other inmate of the ward/hospital raised hue and cry through which it could be deduced that due to act of the accused, any insecurity or panic atmosphere was created or the act of zina-bil-jabr was committed---Complainant of present case, who was father of victim, was not an eye-witness---Astonishingly at the time of passing urine the victim had not bolted the door of washroom---Question also arose as to how the accused being an outsider entered in the hospital and went to the washroom at a particular time in early hours of the morning---All the said factors suggested that either the offence as alleged was not committed or the victim herself had called the accused for the alleged act and latter she implicated him in the case---Plea of the accused that the victim's family were habitual in making and filing criminal cases against others got support from the evidence of the victim wherein she admitted that prior to this incident same type of allegation was leveled against one co-villager---Clothes allegedly worn by the victim at the time of the offence were not torn nor she sustained any scratch on her body; therefore, court was persuaded to believe that it was a case of fornication and no offence of zina-bil-jabr was committed---In such circumstances, the accused was convicted under S.496-B, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I for 05 years, which term of sentence the accused had already served out in jail---As none of the ingredients of terrorism as set out in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were established in this case against the accused; therefore, he was acquitted from the charges of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muhammad Tahir Jatoi

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B & 376---Carrying away of a woman by any means with an aim that she may be compelled to marriage or forced or made to illicit intercourse, against her will---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Petitioner was charged for kidnapping the daughter of complainant for illicit relations---Record showed that daughter of the complainant had married accused/applicant out of her own free will and, in that connection, had appeared before the Court to record her statement that she had allegedly married the applicant---At that stage, a charge under Ss.3 and 4 of the Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2013, was also included against the applicant---Abductee was sent to Darul Aman on the instructions of the Court, and it appeared that some days later, she opted to go back home with her parents---Later on, abductee took a somersault on her earlier stance and now alleged that applicant had kidnapped her and that all her appearances in Court and earlier statements were obtained from her under duress---As per record, charge under S.376, P.P.C, had also been added against the applicant---Said Section was the penal provision for the offence of rape, which carried a potential sentence of 10 to 25 years or imprisonment for the remainder period of natural life, thus falling within the non - prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Upon a tentative assessment, the applicant might have a case to answer for offences leading to a life in prison---Moreover, it also seemed that the applicant could tamper with evidence and exert undue influence on the victim---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2642 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mohib Ali

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PLD 170 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : FAQEER MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2642 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mohib Ali

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a minor person, rape, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by the witnesses---Accused was charged that he alongwith his co-accused abducted the minor daughter of complainant, committed rape with her and then murdered her by strangulation---Record showed that in his statement, complainant did not disclose any clue whatsoever about any of the assailants---In the same document/complaint names of two witnesses were also mentioned who assisted the complainant for the search of his daughter---In witness box, both complainant and a witness made material improvements in their statements---Perusal of statement of witness also made it clear that he too changed his story by improvement---If said two witnesses had joined complainant on the same day i.e. 30.11.2010, started search and they both told that they had seen the assailants and deceased together, why such important fact was not unveiled by complainant when he made the statement to Police Official---By no stretch of imaginations in his statement, complainant maintained that he made any telephone call to said witnesses and they associated him on 30.11.2010 but what was claimed was that both the witnesses came to him in the morning of 01.12.2010---In view of such state of affairs, the worth, veracity, credibility and reliability of complainant and witness were completely smashed---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2642 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mohib Ali

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 376 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a minor person, rape, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Infirmities---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused abducted the minor daughter of complainant, committed rape with her and then murdered her by strangulation---In the present case, the prosecution was left only with the confession made by accused---Statement of complainant showed that he had seen the accused in police custody for the first time after 4/5 days of the occurrence which meant by or before 05.12.2010 accused was with the Investigating Officer---Even witness in cross-examination categorically replied that accused was arrested on the day of recovery of dead body---In such circumstances, prosecution itself had confirmed that the accused was arrested much earlier to 17.01.2011 which meant that he remained under illegal confinement since the actual day of his arrest, so on such ground alone the confession had lost its worth---As per record, Magistrates one after the other committed serious illegalities while passing the orders on the repeated requests of the Investigating Officer---On the very first day (18.01.2011) when the accused was produced before the Magistrate, he was supposed to proceed in the manner as prescribed under S.164, Cr.P.C. read with the relevant Rules and Orders of the High Court---After formulating the questions and taking their answers, he could declare that the accused seemed to be under pressure and in that eventuality Magistrate was not supposed to return accused's custody to the Investigating Officer but to send him to Jail and to call him again at an appropriate date according to his own satisfaction so as to find out whether there still was or not any pressure or influence on accused---In any case even thereafter, accused had to be sent to Jail and no authority was vested with the Magistrate to hand over accused's custody to the Investigating Officer---Similarly, the Duty Magistrate could not adjourn the matters by assigning so-called reasons for the arrest of co-accused, issuance of notice to him or asking the accused to engage an Advocate---If the first Magistrate committed illegality, at least second Magistrate (Duty) on 22.01.2011 and 26.11.2011 could have done the right thing instead of following the same illegality made by the first Magistrate---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Complainant claimed production of broken string, shirt and torn Shalwar of victim before the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer controverted such fact by stating that the complainant or the victim did not produce the clothes and broken string---Investigating Officer did not ask the complainant and the victim to produce the clothes and the broken string---Prosecution leveled allegation against two accused persons---Place of occurrence was reportedly house of co-accused, and allegation against her of guarding the act of rape, was not possible when it was admitted by the witnesses that parents and kids of co-accused were residing in the same house---Said house consisted of only one room which was at a distance of 35 to 40 feet and 5/7 karams from main gate, which was the reason Investigating Officer found co-accused not involved in the commission of offence, therefore, she was acquitted after trial---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of five days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Admittedly, complainant was not the eye-witness of occurrence who reported the matter with the delay of five days on 14.11.2016 and stated that victim did not inform him about the occurrence from her cell phone on the same day---Though the complainant in his statement before the Court stated to have reported the matter through an application on 12.11.2016 which by itself was after three days of the occurrence however, FIR was further delayed for two days and registered on 14.11.2016---In any manner there was apparent delay in reporting the matter to the police and lodgment of the FIR and no explanation whatsoever was available on the record for such delay---Thus, the possibility of due deliberation and consultation by the complainant before reporting the occurrence to the police could not be ruled out of consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Place of occurrence was disputed because alleged eye-witnesses could not describe or explain it clearly when they deposed that they did not remember that cots were lying in the room and conceded that they did not see any other house-hold articles in the room where alleged occurrence took place---Place of occurrence was further disputed when Investigating Officer did not collect anything incriminating from that place and though witnesses claimed hearing of hue and cry of victim when they reached near the shop of "GB" which was opened yet said "GB" whose workshop was shown adjacent to the house of occurrence was not associated with the investigation nor produced during the trial---From the narration of witnesses, it could safely be held that neither they were present at the place of occurrence nor in any manner witnessed the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Istikhar alias Iftikhar

Side Opponent : State

S. 376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Evidence of minor victim, reliance upon---Accused was charged for committing Zina-bil-jabr with the minor daughter of the complainant---Prosecution case hinged upon the testimony of complainant, two eye-witnesses and the victim---Complainant reiterated the contents of the crime report---Two eye-witnesses unflinchingly supported the complainant while stating that they witnessed the accused committing rape with the minor girl---Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but the defence could not shatter their credibility on material particulars of the incident---Most crucial and star witness of the occurrence was the victim---Victim was about five years old at the time of recording of evidence and the trial Court before recording her testimony put some queries to her in order to determine whether she was competent to understand the questions and after satisfying it on that point, recorded her statement---Victim girl in her statement, in categorical terms raised accusing finger towards the accused to be the person, who took her towards a tube-well, removed her clothes and committed rape with her---Victim faced the test of cross-examination with full confidence and gave graphic details of the incident in a quite natural manner---During cross-examination, victim not only gave the name of her teacher but also her immediate neighbors and class fellows---From the tenor of the statement of the star witness, Court was convinced that what she deposed while appearing in the dock in the Court room was confidence inspiring and no one had tutored her in that regard---Statement of the victim child was quite natural, straightforward, convincing and confidence inspiring leaving no room for the Court to draw any adverse inference---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence not supporting the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Occurrence took place on 09.11.2016, but victim took five days to appear before the doctor for her medical examination on 14.11.2016---Woman Medical Officer examined her and expressed her opinion with respect to examination of clothes as no cut, no tear and no hole etc., was present on the clothes---No blood, no urine or vomit was present---For local/specific examination the observation was that no bruise, abrasion, laceration or other type of injury was present, and that vagina admitted one finger and the hymen was old healed and ruptured---Only mild submucosal hemorrhages disappear within 3 to 4 days, whereas "marked" hemorrhages persisted for 11 to 15 days; therefore, if the rape was committed with the victim forcibly, then in five days hymen should not have healed up---In such state of affairs, the story put forth by the prosecution with respect to commission of rape with the victim fell to the ground, because medical examination of victim after five days showed old healed rupture of hymen which was not possible in five days---Moreso, Investigating Officer conceded during cross-examination that Forensic Science Agency Report was received with the opinion that no seminal material was found on the vaginal swabs---Therefore, no support to prosecution story was available in the form of medical evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

S. 376(1)---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of victim doubtful---Accused was charged for committing rape with the sister of complainant on gun point---Evidence showed that school was adjacent to the place of occurrence and the star witness/victim conceded during cross-examination that one security guard remained present in school timing at the gate of the school---Victim being grownup lady working as teacher in the school was not expected to blindly follow the accused towards the house of co-accused because she herself conceded that no clinic of a doctor or a nurse was in the house of co-accused---Victim exaggerated during cross-examination that accused caught of her from the gate of the school, dragged her towards the house of co-accused and in that process she received abrasions on the hands and other parts of her body during the scuffle but admitted that she did not show such abrasions to Woman Medical Officer at the time of her medical examination---Alleged place of occurrence was adjacent to school, i.e. workshop of "GB" and opposite to a petrol pump, therefore, it could not be expected that one could drag the victim without notice or alarm to anyone around---Fact of dragging had not been deposed by any other witness, therefore such expression was created by the victim to earn a favour that she was helpless against masculine aggression---Contention of victim about abrasions on her body during such scuffle could not materialized through the medical opinion---Thus, victim was not truthful witness, and her claim of resistence/scuffle with accused could have taken corroborative effect if her complete medical examination revealed some other form of aggression on or around her perineal area, which was missing---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PLD 170 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : FAQEER MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1047 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Kamran alias Kami

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376 & 511---Rape, attempt to commit offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Delay in sending swabs for chemical analysis---Accused was charged for forcibly committing rape with the daughter of complainant---Record showed that DNA report said that semen was found but when the semen was not sent then how the Chemical Report could state positive---Moreover, the semen was alleged to have been found on the clothes of the victim, thus, this was a case of attempt to rape and the complainant party had shown their suspicion upon the present accused---Nobody could be convicted on account of presumptions and assumptions as the Woman Medico-Legal Officer had opined that "there might be an attempt of rape"---Moreover, it appeared that victim was produced before the woman Medico-Legal Officer on 19.11.2018 after a delay of six days of the incident but as per medical theory after 72 hours no semen could be detected---Woman Medico-Legal Officer further observed that there were no marks of violence on the body of victim---Victim had no injury on her body at all---Woman Medico-Legal Officer admitted in her cross examination that as per D.N.A report, there was no mention of detection of human semen in the low vaginal cotton swabs---Duration of detection of human semen was about 72 hours---Victim was examined by woman Medico-Legal Officer about one week after the alleged incident---As per Chemical Report, the low vaginal cotton swabs were received at chemical laboratory on 29.11.2018 i.e., about two weeks after the alleged incident---Doubt was there in the report of Chemical Analyst as the human semen was not detected in the low vaginal swabs sent to D.N.A. testing laboratory---Record was silent as to why the delay occurred in the dispatch of cotton swabs to the chemical laboratory---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1073 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Ghulam Mustafa

Side Opponent : State

S.376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of incriminating material---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant---With regard to the blood and semen on the Shalwar of the accused that was removed from his house by his annoyed wife five days after the incident and given to the police, interestingly, no blood was found from the house of the accused which begged the question whether the sexual assault/rape actually took place in his house---Blood and semen was sent to the Chemical Examiner nine days after the incident and remained with the Chemical Examiner for about eleven months---Most witnesses stated that the accused was with the bloodied victim from the time he brought her home to taking her to the local doctor, then to civil hospital and a medical center so it might be that the blood on his shalwar came from the victim during that period although that was not conclusive---With regard to the human sperm being found on the shalwarof accused that was probably the strongest piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused however the shalwar was not kept in safe custody and although sperm had been found on his shalwar there was no evidence that the sperm belonged to him---Even if the sperm did belong to accused it could have been planted by his wife who was annoyed with him, for not living with him and wanted a divorce---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved the charge against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1135 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mansab Ali

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 365-A, 376(2), 376(3) & 392--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 23--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439---Abduction of ransom, rape, dacoity and terrorism--- Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Accused was aggrieved of order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court declining to transfer the case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity--- Demand of ransom for release of either property, cash or otherwise was the ingredients which must be present to attract provisions of S.365-A, P.P.C.---There was no demand of ransom of cash either from complainant or her relative---Irrational interpretation of word "any other demand" by extending it to 'compel a woman for a sexual intercourse' could not be adopted by High Court---Offences under Ss.365-B & 376, P.P.C., exclusively dealt with the offenses of rape, sexual intercourse with a woman against her will by putting her under fear of death etc.---High Court directed Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to Court of Sessions Judge to try the case himself or entrust it to some other Additional Sessions Judge---Resultantly order in question was set aside---Revision was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1535 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Shahnawaz Almani

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 364, 376 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting any person in order that such person may be murdered, rape, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence, principle of---Applicability---Accused was charged for kidnapping minor niece of complainant and murdering her after rape---Record showed that last seen evidence had been produced by three witnesses---From the evidence of eye-witnesses who had seen the accused taking minor girl with him and her never returning and later she being found dead in crop, clearly showed that the deceased-baby was last seen with the accused who took her in front of the eye-witnesses---Thus, the last seen principle was absolutely applicable against the accused in the present circumstances---Therefore, the accused was connected in a chain of events that occurred leading to the recovery of the deceased baby girl on the pointation of the accused---Therefore, it was a link to the chain of circumstances against the accused---Such piece of evidence connected the circumstances i.e. the deceased knew the accused who was her maternal cousin---Complainant, father of the deceased baby, was relative of the accused and there was no ill will on their part to implicate him by leaving the real culprit---Moreover the incident took place within a short gap between the sighting and the occurrence of the offence, which was consistent with the prosecution evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1535 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Shahnawaz Almani

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 364, 376 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting any person in order that such person may be murdered, rape, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Act of terrorism---Scope---Accused was charged for kidnapping minor niece of complainant and murdering her after rape---Events and the circumstantial evidence proved that the accused was the person who had committed heinous offence of rape and murder and deserved no leniency---No reason or mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence to the accused was available in the case---However, the offences did not fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Regardless of the severity, shock value, brutality, gruesomeness, or horror of an offence, it could not be characterized as an act of terrorism unless it was committed with the specific intent or purpose outlined in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of the Act, 1997 which was lacking in the present case---Resultantly the appeal was dismissed however, the convictions and sentences were upheld with regard to the non-Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 offences so charged.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 671 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MANSAB ALI

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 23 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 392, 376(ii) & 376(iii)---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., robbery, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, rape, act of terrorism---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the ordinary court was dismissed---Validity---Complainant lodged FIR alleging that accused persons kidnapped her along with her daughter, committed rape with them, snatched mobile phone and hard cash and ran away---As per contents of the FIR, Court had not noticed any demand of property (movable or immovable) valuable security or compelling of the complainant or her daughter to comply with any other demand in cash or otherwise---Moreover, it was not the case of the prosecution that the assailants demanded some money and upon their failure put them in illegal confinement and committed zina-bil-jabr---Under S. 365-A, P.P.C., the element of extortion from the person or kidnapping or abducting for the purpose of any property movable or immovable, valuable security or other demand, whether cash or otherwise for obtaining release of any kidnapped or abducted person is made---Such elements were not available in the present FIR, therefore, S. 365-A, P.P.C., was not be attracted---In the instant case, there was no demand of ransom of cash either from the complainant or her relative---Irrational interpretation of the word "any other demand" by extending it to compel a woman for a sexual intercourse could not be adopted by the Court particularly when offences under S. 365-B, P.P.C. & S. 376, P.P.C. exclusively deal with the offence of rape; and sexual intercourse with a woman against her will by putting her under fear of death, etc.---Criminal revision was allowed, in circumstances, by setting aside order passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, resultantly, the trial of case was to be referred back by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, to Sessions Judge who shall either himself or entrust it to any Additional Sessions Judge, for its trial.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1563 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Amjad Ali

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 363, 365-A, 376(ii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Improvements made by the complainant in his statement---Effect---Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her---In the FIR registered against unknown persons, there was no mention by the complainant that anyone, let alone the accused persons, had made a ransom demand for the safe return of his daughter---Complainant had nothing to fear by adding that aspect of the case in his S.154, Cr.P.C. statement as he knew his daughter was already dead and as such he had nothing to lose by mentioning the ransom demand from three unknown persons in his S.154, Cr.P.C statement---In fact on 02.08.2015 one of the accused persons was arrested on the assertions of the original accused who was being interrogated in police custody in respect of the crime on 01.08.2015, who the accused persons claimed in their S.342, Cr.P.C. statements was the real accused but was let off after paying a bribe---After the arrest of one of the accused persons for the crime that in the further statement made by the complainant on 03.08.2015 the story of a ransom demand from three unknown persons surfaced which appeared to be based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case to be manufactured and as such little reliance could be placed on the so called eye-witness evidence of the complainant---Such a material improvement in the further statement of the complainant after arrest of one of the accused persons casted serious doubt on his entire evidence as it was a massive, significant and dishonest improvement in the context of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 363, 365-A, 376(ii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence not believable---Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her---No eye-witness saw the abduction of the deceased or the murder or rape of the deceased---Only evidence in respect of the abduction was the last seen evidence of a witness---According to his evidence on 30.07.2015 at about 6.40 p.m. the witness was sitting in his workshop and saw three culprits taking away the deceased girl with them on a motorcycle---On 31.08.2015 the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the police came to his workshop and asked him if he could identify the persons who he had seen taking the girl away by motor bike to which he answered in the affirmative---On 06.08.2015 he came to the court for an identification parade however it could not take place and he returned for the identification parade on 08.08.2015 whereby he identified all of the accused persons as being the ones the motor bike with the deceased---From his evidence questions emerged, how did the police know that he had seen the incident as the police came to him and not vice versa---Unclear, how many days after the incident he gave his S.161, Cr.P.C statement to the police---In his S.161, Cr.P.C statement by his own admission he did not give any features, hulia, description of the accused persons or the deceased none of whom he had seen before so how could he be able to safely and correctly identify them at an identification parade---More significantly said witness stated that he saw 20/30 bikes taking babies on the same day so how did he know that it were the present accused persons, (who he had never seen before) who had kidnapped a child rather than any others person driving their bikes with a baby on board---Even if the witness was correct in his identification of the accused persons and the deceased, how did we know that the accused persons did not drop off the deceased elsewhere before her death---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 363, 365-A, 376(ii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her---According to the evidence of first Investigating Officer in this case on 01.08.2015 he initially arrested Mr. "G" and Mr. "N" on suspicion and brought them to the Police Station---During interrogation Mr. "G" informed him that one of the present accused persons had come on motor cycle with the deceased girl at his mechanic shop to meet Mr. "I", which led him to arrest said accused on 02.08.2015 who was located through spy information---Significantly, Mr. "G" would have been the best witness for last seen evidence however he was not called as a witness to give evidence for the prosecution and nor was Mr. "I" for reasons best known to the prosecution---Surprisingly Mr. "G" did not mention that the girl was raising any objection to being with accused or was in any kind of distress---No explanation was furnished as to why the Investigating Officer found Mr. "G" to be innocent and was dropped as the main suspect although the defence claimedthat it was on account of him taking a bribe---Once accused was arrested rather conveniently a further statement was taken from the complainant introducing for the first time that a ransom demand had been made for the safe return of the deceased and accused was later conveniently identified by the complainant as one of the persons who made the demand---Evidence to be treated as reliable must appeal to logic, commonsense, reason and natural conduct---In the present case it did not appeal to logic, commonsense, reason or natural conduct that accused would go to a mechanic with many workers present with an abducted girl who would be able to identify him especially if he raped and murdered the girl within one day---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 363, 365-A, 376(ii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her---As for the identification parade it was carried out in such a manner that no reliance could be placed on it---Firstly it was a joint identification parade which practice was deprecated by the Superior Courts---Secondly, the dummies being 27 in total were all collected by the police and even an ASI from the same Police Station which was investigating the crime was made to be a dummy---Thirdly, no CNIC's or any details of the dummies were taken and as such it was found that the identification parade was not carried out in accordance with the relevant legal procedures which greatly undermined its legal value and no reliance could be placed on it---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 671 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MANSAB ALI

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1841 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : Maqbool Hussain

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 376, 364-A & 511---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), S. 53---Rape, kidnapping or abducting a minor, attempted rape, sexual abuse---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Natural witnesses---Accused was charged that he took the minor daughter of complainant to a nearby jungle and raped her---Victim, who was a minor girl of about 11/12 years of age, narrated the entire episode in a straightforward manner in her examination-in-chief---Said witness remained consistent during her cross-examination despite intense questions put to her---Similarly, another minor girl who was aged about 10/11 years and accompanying the victim at the time when she was forcibly taken by the accused to the nearby jungle was examined and her testimony too strengthened the prosecution case---Complainant narrated the same story as in the FIR---Witness, who at the relevant time accompanied the complainant to the spot and witnessed all the events was also examined and his statement was fully in line with the statement of complainant as well as the prosecution version---All the said witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing was extracted from their mouth in favour of the accused---Moreso, no clue of mala fide or grudge for false implication of the accused in the case could be noticed in the entire prosecution evidence---In the peculiar circumstances, no question of misidentification of the accused would arise---No material contradiction in testimonies of all the witnesses were found, therefore, the presence of all the witnesses on the spot at the relevant time could confidently be termed as natural---Testimonies of the prime prosecution witnesses particularly of the victim, were fully corroborated by medical evidence brought by the prosecution through Medical Officers---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt under Ss.376/511 P.P.C, however due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was however reduced from ten years to five years---Accused was however acquitted of the charge under S.364-A, P.P.C---Appeal was partially allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Istikhar alias Iftikhar

Side Opponent : State

S. 376---Rape---Appreciation of evidence---DNA profile---Scope---Accused was charged for committing Zina-bil-jabbar with the minor daughter of the complainant---Allegedly, in the report of DNA analysis, no semen stain was detected---However, this was not helpful for the defence for more than one reasons---Firstly, according to the Medical Officer, private area of the victim was washed prior to her examination, as such there seemed no possibility of availability of semen at the time of examination---Secondly, detection of seminal material in the vaginal swabs of the victim was just a corroboratory piece of evidence and merely due to its non-detection the other overwhelming ocular and medical evidence could not be discarded---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1535 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Shahnawaz Almani

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1535 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Shahnawaz Almani

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 364, 376 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting any person in order that such person may be murdered, rape, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Act of terrorism---Scope---Accused was charged for kidnapping minor niece of complainant and murdering her after rape---Events and the circumstantial evidence proved that the accused was the person who had committed heinous offence of rape and murder and deserved no leniency---No reason or mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence to the accused was available in the case---However, the offences did not fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Regardless of the severity, shock value, brutality, gruesomeness, or horror of an offence, it could not be characterized as an act of terrorism unless it was committed with the specific intent or purpose outlined in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of the Act, 1997 which was lacking in the present case---Resultantly the appeal was dismissed however, the convictions and sentences were upheld with regard to the non-Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 offences so charged.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAHBAZ

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1073 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Ghulam Mustafa

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Haresh Kumar

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1047 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Kamran alias Kami

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muzamil

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muhammad Tahir Jatoi

Side Opponent : State

Sohaib Ali Sheikh

Search This Blog