2006 SC MR 338 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 SC MR 338 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chairman, Justices Mian Shakirullah Jan, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmud and Dr. Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 SC MR 338 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 SC MR 338 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction bench comprising: Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chairman, Justices Mian Shakirullah Jan, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmud and Dr. Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 SC MR 338 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 19-3-2005 of the Federal Shariat Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.280-L of 2003).
S. 377
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F(2B)
Victim boy had categorically implicated both the accused with commission of sodomy forcibly with him and his statement was corroborated by the statement of his maternal-uncle to whom he had immediately narrated the facts
Medical evidence had further supported the victim and his sole testimony was sufficient to base conviction
Accused had failed to bring on record any animosity with the complainant for their false implication
No illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by Supreme Court was pointed out by the defence counsel in the case
Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR (CHAIRMAN).
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 19-3-2005 passed by learned Federal Shariat Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No.280-L of 2003 filed by them was dismissed and conviction under section 377, P.P.C. and sentence of five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000 each and in default to suffer three months' R.I. awarded by the trial Court was maintained. However, benefit of section 382-B was extended to them.
2. Precisely, the case, as unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Abdul Ghaffar, is that he is resident of Habib Town, Dakhli Chak No.85/6-R where he runs flour mill. Petitioner Muhammad Asif was employed at a water Tanki and use to come 'to complainant for recovery of water charges. On the fateful day complainant went to the house of petitioner Muhammad Asif for Iftari where petitioner Muhammad Abid also arrived. At about 8-30 petitioner Muhammad Asif insisted for going for a walk in the fields. When they reached near maize crops petitioner Muhammad Asif began to tease him. On his protest, petitioner Muhammad Asif took out his knife and threatened him not to make noise and laid him on the earth where sodomy was committed by both petitioners one after the other. After that he was taken to the house of Mirza Shakoor situated near the house of petitioner Muhammad Asif. At night petitioner Muhammad Asif again committed sodomy with him. When petitioner Muhammad Asif went to his house for Sehri at about 4-30 he took the bicycle of petitioner Muhammad Asif and succeeded to come to his house and narrated the incident to his father Muhammad Hayat and maternal-uncle Muhammad Siddique. A case was registered under section 377, P.P.C. under section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance') against petitioners.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all.
4. Petitioners in their respective statements recorded under section 342 of Cr.P.C. denied the allegation of the prosecution and claimed innocence. However, they neither examined themselves on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. not led any evidence in, defence.
5. On the conclusion of trial petitioners were convicted and sentenced under section 377, P.P.C. as stated above. However, they were acquitted from the charge under section 12 of the Ordinance.
6. We have heard Sit. Zamir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
7. The learned counsel at the very outset stated that petitioners have been convicted on the sole testimony of victim and no other corroborating evidence is available on the record. He argued that petitioners have been involved in this case due to dispute over the payment of water charges with complainant party.
8. We are not persuaded to agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner mainly for the reasons that petitioners have failed to bring on record any animosity with the complainant for their false implication. On the contrary, the prosecution has brought on record truthful and believable evidence produced by Abdul Ghafar victim who categorically implicated the petitioners with commission of sodomy forcibly. His statement is corroborated by the statement of P.W. Muhammad Siddique to whom he narrated the facts immediately. His version is also supported by medical evidence produced by Dr. Muhammad Saeed Sabri, P.W.2 according to which there were slight abrasions present between anus and the tip of coccyx. Sole testimony of victim, if supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to base conviction.
9. From what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that prosecution has fully established its case against petitioners. Learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. N.H.Q./M-337/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.