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 Miscellaneous No. 2196‑B of 1984, decided on 4th September, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑F.I.R. lodged after delay of 15 days‑‑Eye‑witnesses stated to have sworn not to have seen the occurrence‑‑Victim not making any allegation when appeared against accused in a case under S.436, P .P. C.----‑Doctor's statement not believed‑‑Case proceeding on false allegations‑‑Bail allowed.
Ghulam Nabi Bhatti for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ashraf for the State.
The petitioner is charged with committing rape with his sister‑in- law Met. Shahnaz Bibi on 12‑6‑1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was not pulling on well with his wife Mst. Razia Bibi as a result of which she was not living with him but in the house of her parents. On 12‑6‑1984 the, petitioner visited the house of his in‑laws and after pushing out his wife 81st. Razia bolted the door from inside and started committing rape with Mat. Shahnaz. Mat. Razia raised hue and cry attracting Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Din and Hamid P.Ws. who opened the door and thus, witnessed the occurrence. It is alleged that on coming out, the petitioner was so confused and enraged that he put the said house on fire as a result of which a separate case under section 436 , P.P.C. was also registered against him on 14‑6‑1984.
Mat. Shahnaz was medically examined on 28‑6‑1984 and according to the doctor no marks of violence on any part of her body were seen.
However, her hymen was found torn. Vagina admitted two fingers and the examination was painful. According to the doctor she had been subjected to sexual act.
3. Bail is urged on the ground of delay in F.I.R. According to the learned counsel the occurrence had taken place on 2‑6‑1984 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 27‑6‑1984 without any reasonable excuse. Learned counsel states that the case under section 436, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 14‑6‑1984 and Mst. Shahnaz had appeared as eye‑witness in the said case but while making her statement she did not level any allegation of rape against the petitioner. This allegation was levelled for the first time after the petitioner had been bailed out in the case under section 436, P.P.C. Further according to the learned counsel two independent eye‑witnesses namely Muhammad Din and Hamid mentioned in the F.I.R. have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen any such occurrence. He has also referred to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence where it is mentioned that the examination can be painful only if the victim is examined within a day or two of the commission of the deed. In the instant case she was medically examined after 16 days. According to him the case proceeds on absolutely false allegations because of the strained relations between the petitioner and his wife.
4. In the above circumstances, it appears to be a case of further enquiry. Accordingly, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sheikhupura.
M.A.K. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer