Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 164 of 1967, decided on 3rd October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st February 1967, in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 1967).
S. 154‑First information Report‑Offence under Ss. 376 & 452‑Rape committed on prosecutrix during day time in absence of her husband‑First Information Report lodged by husband on return from duty in same evening‑Held, not unduly delayed.
Art. 58(3)‑Special leave to appeal‑Points raised merely going to appreciation of evidence‑View taken by Courts below, however, not found to be opposed to any legal principal or rule governing appreciation of evidence Petition dismissed.
Nasir Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd October 1967.
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court 'of West Pakistan, refusing to interfere in revision with the convictions of the petitioner under sections 376 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Allegations against the petitioner Saeed Ahmad and one, Muhammad Iqbal, were that during the absence of the husband of prosocutrix Mst. Nasim from his house they trespassed into her room and committed rape on her. The evidence of Mst. Nasim is corroborated by various circumstantial evidence such as scratch marks on her arms, presence of semen on her shalwar and vagina. Furthermore, when Shahadat Khan (P. W. 6), husband of her sister‑in‑law, went to her house on hearing the alarm raised by her, he saw the accused running away from the house. She then and there narrated the whole story to him.
The learned counsel has contended that the Courts below should not have accepted her evidence. He has also commented on the delay in lodging the first information report in this case. The incident took place at about 2‑30 p.m. when the husband was attending to his duties at the Railway Workshop. She reported the incident to her husband, Abdul Aziz, on his return from the Workshop in the evening: He then lodged the information report at the Police Station. The Courts below therefore rightly held that there was no undue delay in reporting the incident to the Police.
The other points raised by the learned counsel merely go to the appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel has, however, failed to point out that the view taken by the Courts below was opposed to any legal principle or rule governing the appreciation of evidence. Hence, we do not see sufficient reason to enter upon a re‑appraisal of evidence in this case.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer