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. 14-P of 1967, decided on 27th March 1968:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar, dated the 11th April 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1967).
----S. 363-Defence version that girl alleged to have been kidnapped was a fiance of accused and had herself willingly come over to him-Evidence regarding age doubt ful-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether conviction legally maintainable.
Dr. Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by G. S. Godeon, Attorney for Petitioners.
Date of hearing : 27th March 1968.
-The petitioners who are 6 in number were convicted for kidnapping Mst. Rifat from her mother', custody. Gul Faraz has been sentenced to 4 years' R. I., under section 363, P. P. C. and to one year's R. I, under section 148, P. P. C., the remaining petitioners to 2 years' R. I, under section 363/34, P. P. C. and one year's R. I, under section 148. P. P. C. sentences to run concurrently. Their appeal to the High Court has failed.
The defence was that Mst. Rifat was fiance of Gul Faraz and had willingly come over to him when her mother wanted to give her in marriage to someone else. The defence version has not at all engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge in the high Court whose judgment has proceeded merely on the issue of the age of the kidnapee which was stated to be 15 years by the Lady Doctor as well as her mother but the latter also said that Mst. Rifat was born before the creation of Pakistan which would place her age at more than 17 years at the time of the occurrence. The medical evidence on the question of age, of course, is not conclusive. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the learned Single Judge, in his appreciation of the medical evidence, on the point of age has relied on a ruling Ismail v. Abdullah and another (P L D 1963 Kar. 160) which does not even refer to that point.
The petition is allowed to consider whether the conviction of the petitioner is legally maintainable.'
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer