Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1968, decided on 9^th December 1968.

S. 376‑Rape‑Categorical medical opinion that victim subjected to sexual intercourse‑State ment of prosecutrix receiving corroboration from injuries on her person and evidence of disinterested witness‑Conviction and sentence imposed on accused upheld.

Manzoor Hussain for Applicant.

This revision petition is at the instance of Muhammad Salim son of Rahem Ali, Muslim, aged about 14 years, and directed against the order dated 24‑9‑1968 of Mrs. Suraiya Ahmad Pal, A. C. M. No. XIII, Karachi, President, Juvenile Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to be detained in Juvenile Jail, Landhi for a period of three years under sec tion 27 (1) (d) of the Bombay Children Act, 1924, for an offence under section 376, P. P. C.

2. I have heard Mr. Manzoor Hussain Advocate at some length and on perusing the material evidence I find that the offence under section 376 is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The prosecution case as narrated at the trial briefly is that on 15‑5‑68 at about 10/11 a.m. a minor girl Mst. Zahida, aged about 9 years (hereinafter to be referred to as the prosecutrix) was subjected to violent rape by the petitioner, which resulted in profused bleeding from the private part. She went crying and apprised her father Abdul Latif (P. W. 1) and her mother Mst. Ikhan and one neighbour Niazuddin (P. W. 4) that she had been subjected to rape by the petitioner, who was their neighbour living in a closeby hut.

4. The prosecutrix was examined by Mrs. Sadiqa Jafri (P. W. 6) on 15‑5‑68, having been taken to her by her father Abdul Latif (P. W. 1), who suggested that the injury to the private part of the prosecutrix was caused by a fall. The father explained that on account of shame he did not disclose the true facts to the lady doctor, and the report of the occurrence was lodged on the following day at 2‑45 p.m.

5. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Muhammad Umar Khan (P. W. 7), who returned a categorical opinion that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse.) He stated:

"In my opinion sexual intercourse is done on the girl which is about 2 days old."

The said doctor on examination found:

"Vagina tight oozing of blood present in traces. Foursheet and posterior commissura torn. Very painful and oozing of blood started during examination. Hymen torn at 6 o'clock and tear reaching the vaginal wall."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the case has not been brought home to the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. He contended:

(1) That the report was lodged on the following day, and that Abdul Latif (P. W. 1), father of the prosecutrix, before the lady doctor had stated that the prosecutrix had received the injury as a result of fall.

(2) That Dr. Muhammad Umar Khan on cross‑examination stated that the rupture of the hymen could be caused by fall on a projected article.

7. As already stated, Abdul Latif (P. W. 1) had explained that he had not revealed the true facts on account of shame. The real question in the instant case is whether there was any motive for the prosecution for levelling a false charge against the petitioner, in particular when the medical examination shows that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse, which resulted in rupture of the hymen and bleeding, which was even observed by Doctor Muhammad Umar two days after the occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr. P. C. wherein he stated that a false charge had been levelled against him, in that the relatives of the prosecutrix had strained relations with him. The petitioner did not elaborate what was the nature of the enmity and who were the relations of the camplainant. People in this part of the country generally, with a view to saving the girl and the family from bad name, some time do not make report, and the present case is also one of those cases, that Abdul Latif (P. W. 1) father of the prosecutrix, tried to hide this matter when he took the prosecutrix to the lady doctor. The statement of the prosecutrix receives corroboration from the injuries on her person. Niazuddin (P. W. 4), who is prefectly a disinterested witness, being the neighbour of the parties, has stated that the prosecutrix came weeping with her blood‑stained trousers, saying that she had been subjected to rape by the petitioner.

8. For all the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed in limine.

9. The learned counsel has prayed that instead of the petitioner remaining in the Juvenile Jail, Landhi, he should be given into the custody of the father. The very fac that while in custody of the father, he committed a very heinous offence would clearly show that the father had no control over the son. This prayer is, therefore, refused.

Petition dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.