1999 P Cr (PLP)

5. Another contention for the appellant is that there is violation of mandates created by sections 154, 341, 361 and 543, Cr.P.C. All the four sections are reproduced as below:‑‑ Section

154. Cr.P.C. "Information in cognizable cases.‑‑‑ Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf." Section

341. Cr.P.C. "Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings.‑‑‑ If the accused though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the trial; and in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit. " Section

361. Cr.P.C. "Interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader.‑‑‑ (1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, arid he is present in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. (2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the pleader he shall be interpreted to such pleader in that language. (3) When documents are put in for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as appears necessary. Section

543. Cr.P.C. "Interpreter to be bound to interpret truthfully.‑‑‑ When the services of an interpreter are required by any Criminal Court for the interpretation of any evidence or statement, he shall be bound to state the true interpretation of such evidence or statement. " It has been vehemently argued that the appellant is a Pushto‑speaking person, does not understand Urdu a*d, therefore; there is a clear violation of the abovementioned sections of Cr.P.C. So far as section 154, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it relates to the complainant/first informer and has no nexus with the accused/appellant. So far as other sections are concerned, I do not find any violation as the record proves that the appellant understands Urdu. He has signed the charge‑sheets in Urdu and has replied in affirmative that he has been read over the charge, has understood it and does not plead guilty. All the P. Ws. have been cross‑examined in Urdu and nowhere any objection appears about the interpretation of the deposition in Pushto. The appellant has thumb‑marked his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and has replied all the questions to Urdu. In his memo of appeal sent from jail in Urdu, nowhere he has complained that he could not understand the proceedings during trial. Consequently this contention is repelled.

6. Appellant's counsel has made a reference to certain conflicts and discrepancies between F.I.R. and deposition of the victim boy, P. W. 1, but these discrepancies between F. I. R. and deposition of the victim boy, P. W.1 appear to be minor in nature and do not dislodge the very occurrence specially when the victim is completely corroborated by the medical evidence and report of chemical examiner. This way the objection that no report about the veracity of the appellant has been obtained is misconceived as the appellant has himself shown his age to be 35 years in his Statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and has stated in a forwarding letter attached with the memo of appeal that he belongs to a gentle family and is father of children. Nowhere in the trial Court such plea was ever raised that he is impotent or emasculated.

7. It has been contended that in the Baithak of Inayatullah many persons are said to be available who could have been incorporated as P.Ws., but it has not been done. This contention is repelled for the simple reason that the victim is completely corroborated by expert evidence and in the present day expert evidence has such a force that a reference book on Forensic Sciences, Vo1.I, para. No.1.01 (Publication New York, 1981) has to declare as under:‑‑ "1.01 Admissibility of expert opinion.‑‑‑ Expert testimony has become such an important factor in many trials, both civil and criminal, that rulings on the admissibility of such testimony often determine the outcome of the case."

8. In view of the abovementioned discussion, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. However, benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is also extended to the appellant. H.B.T./22/FSC Appeal dismissed.