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.
Criminal Revision No. 48 of 1981, decided on Ist November, 1981.
---S. 376-Rape-Evidence, appreciation of--No marks of injury found on any part of body of prosecutrix--Tear in her hymen found an old one and prosecutrix appearing to be a consenting party-Prosecutrix a woman of 17/ 18 years of age and explanation given for delay in lodging F. I. R. found without any weight Accused acquitted, in circumstances.
Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.
Majid Sindhoo for the State.
Date of hearing : 1st November, 1981.
The petitioners are three brothers. They were tried for the offence under sections 452, 366 and 376 read with section 34, P. P. C. in respect of the abduction and rape of Mst. Manzooran. The petitioners were found guilty by Ch. Abdul Latif Khan. Magistrate section 30, Sahiwal and all of them were sentenced to R. I. for one year under section 452, P. P. C. and four years under section 366, P. P. C. Murtaza petitioner in addition to the other convictions was also convicted under section 376, P. P. C. and sentenced to 4 years' R. I. It was directed, however, that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by Mr. Jacob Isaac, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 9th February, 1981. The present petition is directed against the judgments of the two Courts below.
2. 1 have gone through the record of the case and the statements of the prosecutrix and the lady Doctor has been read in Court. The medical evidence shows that there are no marks of injury on any part of the body of Mst. Manzooran. Her hymen was found torn but it was an old tear. The Doctor was of the opinion that penetration had taken place. The age of the prosecutrix is not in dispute. She is admittedly 17/18 years of age. The case of the petitioners is that Mst. Manzooran was a consenting party and being of age no offence has been committed by the petitioners.
3. According to the allegations the prosecutrix was forcibly removed from her house in village Nathoo Wash in the presence of her mother at Degar Wela on 31st January, 1976. The mother of Mst. Manzooran was manhandled but no injuries were found on the person of the mother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix herself was not given any injury. She was taken away on a horse back but it is strange that none of the persons of the village which consist of 100 houses resisted the abduction, even though it was in broad day light. It is also on record that some of the persons in the village were in possession of licensed guns.
4. Msr. Manzooran is stated to have been taken to Chak No. 55 where the accused live and was subjected to rape not on the night of occurrence but on the subsequent night. Mst. Manzooran states that while Murtaza petitioner was engaged in sexual intercourse with her the other two petitioners, his real brothers were present on the adjoining beds. This again is a little out of the ordinary. Murtaza is the youngest of the three petitioners and it is not in keeping with the present social standards, that a younger brother has a sexual intercourse with a woman in the presence of his two elder brothers.
5. There is a delay of 6 days in lodging of the F. I. R. The father of the girl Sharaf, P. W. 3lodged the report on 6th February, 1976 through a statement made to the Police in Chak No. 59. This is inspite of the fact that the father had come to know of the abduction on the same day when Mst. Manzooran was taken away. He has explained that the accused had promised to return the girl and he had to go to the R Police only when the promise was not kept. But I am afraid, this explanation is too common place to be given any weight.
6. The circumstances of the case as discussed above cannot lead to a conviction that the petitioners abducted Mst. Manzooran and Murtaza petitioner committed rape with her against her consent. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of all the charges against them.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer