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 Revision No.184 of 1986, decided on 8th November, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354‑‑Modesty, outraging of‑ 'Victim of assault, infirm young girl‑‑Parents of victim having no enmity with accused‑‑No major contradiction or discrepancy affecting in judgments of Courts below, pointed out‑‑Courts below properly appreciating evidence on record‑‑Conclusion arrived at by Courts found based on sound and cogent reasons‑‑Judgments of lower Courts neither illegal nor perverse‑‑Defence evidence not enough to rebut prosecution evidence‑‑Interference with judgments of Courts below, held, was not warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Revision dismissed in limine in circumstances.
Ejaz Baig Mirza for Petitioner.
The facts leading to this criminal revision briefly are that Abdul Karim petitioner was tried under section 354, P. P. C . by Magistrate First Class, Muzaffargarh. The charge against him was that he outraged the modesty of an infirm girl namely, Mst. Nasim Mai aged 16 years on 18‑2‑1983 in the area of Chah Mochiwala of Police Station Rohillanwali.
2. To prove the charge, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Mst. Nasim Mai P.W.1, Mst. Amna P.W.2 and Wahid Bakhsh P.W.3 supported the allegations of outraging the modesty against the petitioner, Waris Ali A.S.I., P.W.4 had investigated the case.
When examined under section 342 Cr. P. C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he produced Gul Muhammad D.W.1 and Allah Wasaya D.W.2 who stated that the alleged occurrence did not take place at all and that Wahid Bakhsh had got a false case lodged against the petitioner on account of party faction. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 354, P. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof 6 months, S.I. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge Muzaffargarh while maintaining the conviction under section 354 P. P. C. reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 8 months R.I. He also reduced the fine from Rs.2,000 to Rs.1,000 or in defalt thereof 3 months' S.I., hence this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution evidence is not reliable; that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the petitioner had falsely been involved in the case and that the defence witnesses had categorically stated that the alleged occurrence had not taken place at all.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. Mst. Nasim Mai, the victim of the assault is an infirm young girl; that she or her parents had no enmity with the petitioner to involve him falsely in the case and that except for minor and immaterial discrepancies here and there, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any major contradiction or material discrepancy effecting the judgments of the Courts below. The judgments passed by the Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not warrant interference with the impugned judgments, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Dismissed in limine.
S. A. /A‑15/L Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer