Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 664 of 1980, decided on 19th April, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑9‑1980 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1203 of 1969).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.363‑‑High Court, after careful consideration of material evidence on point, rejected medical certificate on question of age of victim girl as also oral evidence from accused's side and preferring birth certificate without violating any law and principle of appreciation of evidence‑‑Defence failing to point out any infirmity, legal or otherwise, regarding birth certificate relied upon by High Court while dismissing revision of accused on merit‑‑No justification present to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abdul Majid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th April, 1981.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22‑9‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a criminal revision, calling in question conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 363, P.P.C. was dismissed on examination of the merits.
The prosecution case was that Mst. Bashiran P.W., the victim of offence, who was less than sixteen years of age, was abducted and raped by the petitioner, whose plea was that she was his lawfully wedded wife, because she being more than sixteen years of age had willingly with her consent duly contracted marriage with him. The learned Appellate Court, in its judgment impugned before the High Court had acquitted the petitioner in so far as the charge of rape is concerned, but maintained his conviction under section 363, P.P.C. Earlier, the learned trial Judge had convicted the petitioner on a finding of fact that the abductee was less than sixteen years of age at the time of commission of offence. Reliance in this behalf was placed on copy of the birth entry produced from the prosecution side.
Learned counsel has contended that reliance should have been placed on the opinion of the Doctor regarding question of the age in preference to the birth certificate.
The learned Single Judge in the High Court after careful consideration of the material evidence on the point rejected the medical evidence on question of age as also the oral evidence led from the petitioner's side and has preferred the birth certificate without violating any law or principle of appreciation of evidence. We asked the learned counsel to show any infirmity legal or otherwise regarding the birth certificate, but he failed to do so. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer