1973 PLP 82 (SCMR)
JUMO‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1973 PLP 82 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Wahiduddin Ahmad, J |
| Parties | JUMO‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Wahiduddin Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 82 (SCMR) (JUMO‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N.K Jatoi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.I Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th February 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 8th January 1972, in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 24 of 1967), (a) Appeal against acquittal‑High Court, after giving due weight to view of trial Court and examining each reason given by trial Court for acquittal, setting aside acquittal‑‑High Court, held, acted properly. (b) Appeal to Supreme Court‑Appreciation of evidence‑Not undertaken by Supreme Court unless there is some serious disregard of principles governing appreciation of evidence. Nemo far the State.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RABMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner has been convicted under section 377, P. P. C. for committing sodomy on a boy of 14 years and sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan after setting aside his acquittal in respect of the said charge by the A. C. M. No. X of Karachi. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that the High Court should not have set aside the acquittal, as the acquittal by the Magistrate was based on cogent reasons. The acquittal appeal before the High Court had been filed by the State and as in such an appeal the facts were open to the High Court and it could form its own opinion upon the evidence, although it naturally had to give due weight and consideration to the views of the trial' Court which had the opportunity to see the witnesses. In the present case, the Nigh Court has done that and dealt with each of the reasons given by the Magistrate for the acquittal. The evidence in this case was straight forward. The petitioner had been arrested almost immediately after he committed the illegal act and taken to the police station. Examination of the swabs taken from the anus of the boy and the urethra of the petitioner were both found to contain semen. This confirmed that the petitioner had committed the sexual act shortly before. The victim concerned was not a habitual catamite and since he had no reason at all to falsely implicate the petitioner, this was a sufficient corroboration of his evidence and, therefore; the acquittal by the. Magistrate was not justified. All the points raised in this case relate merely to the appreciation of evidence and this is not a function undertaken by this Court unless there is some serious disregard of the principles governing the appreciation of evidence. No such defect has been pointed out to us. We, therefore, see no reason for interference, This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.