2013 PLP 1442 (YLR)
SHER WALI and another — Appellants Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1442 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Khalid Mahmood, J |
| Parties | SHER WALI and another — Appellants Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1442 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1442 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Khalid Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1442 (YLR) (SHER WALI and another — Appellants Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 496-A
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)
Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman
Appeal against acquittal--Appreciation of evidence
Alleged abductee negating prosecution version
Effect
Accused was alleged to have abducted the alleged abductee with the intention of committing zina with her
Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge
Alleged abductee stated in her statement that she had gone to another city in connection with her job and neither was she abducted by anyone nor anybody had committed zina with her
Grandmother of alleged abductee had not been examined, hence Trial Court had rightly drawn an inference against the prosecution as envisaged under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had the grandmother been produced before the court, she would have given a statement, which would have adversely affected the prosecution case
No grounds existed to interfere in the judgment of the Trial Court
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances.
S. 496-A
Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman
Scope
Abductee was always considered as a star witness of the prosecution case.
S.417(2-A)
Scope
After acquittal the accused earned double presumption of innocence.
Judgment & Decree
KHALID MAHMOOD, J.
The accused-respondent was tried in case F.I.R. No.670 dated 27-9-2010 registered at Police Station Topi District Swabi under section 496-A, P.P.C., found innocent and acquitted by the learned ASJ-II Swabi vide her order dated 20-2-2012. Hence this appeal against the acquittal by the complainant/appellant.
2. Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused-respondent has been directly charged in the F.I.R. for abduction of the abductee. Her Nikah was per-formed with one Shehreyar and there was sufficient evidence to connect the accused, but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence so produced by the prosecution.
3. Arguments heard and file perused.
4. In abduction cases the abductee is always considered as a star witness of the prosecution case. In the present case abductee after her abduction, she has taken altogether different stance, which has shattered the entire prosecution case. In her statement she had stated that she had gone to Rawalpindi in connection with her job and neither she was abducted by anyone nor anybody has committed Zina with her.
5. From the entire evidence it is crystal clear that neither she was induced nor enticed away by the accused. It is also pertinent to note that grandmother of the alleged abductee Mst. Shireena was not examined, hence the learned trial court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution as envisaged under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. It can easily be presumed that had Mst. Shireena been produced before the Court, she would have given her statement, adversely affecting the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has correctly thrashed out the case of the prosecution in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the accused. It is also settled law that in case of acquittal the acquitted accused earns double presumption of innocence and also doubts in the prosecution case. Hence I see no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the appeal in hand is dismissed in limine. MWA/109/P Appeal dismissed.