1998 PLP 1146 (SCMR)
ABID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1146 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | ABID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1146 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1146 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1146 (SCMR) (ABID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Muhammad Naeem, Advocate instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1998.
- Sheikh Muhammad Naeem, Advocate instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Shariat Court, dated 21‑1‑1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 265(L) of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 354‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F(2B)‑‑‑Complainant (victim) was a mother of three daughters‑‑‑Neither the complainant, nor her husband or even her father, on whose testimony conviction of accused was based, would have liked to fabricate a totally false story to implicate the accused as the same would have repercussion not only on their family honour but would also have left a bad scar on the future of daughters of the complainant‑‑‑Use of criminal force and assault on the victim was apparent and evidence on record had fully established the ingredients of the offence under 5.354, P.P.C.‑‑‑No case for interference was, thus, made out‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was even barred by 57 days and no application seeking condonation of delay having been filed, the same was liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation‑‑‑Leave to appeal by Supreme Court was consequently refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-1-1997 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby the judgment dated 17-10-1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shorekot convicting the petitioner under section 354, P.P.C. was upheld but the sentence was reduced to four month's R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for one month.
2. The conviction of the petitioner was based on the testimony of complainant, Mst. Parveen-victim/P.W.1, Safdar Ali--her husband/P.W.3 and Noor Din - father of the victim/P.W.2. It was noted that the complainant was a mother of three daughters. Neither she, nor her husband or even her father would have liked to fabricate a totally false case to implicate the petitioner as that would have repercussions not only on the4 family honour but will also leave a bad scar on the future of the small daughters of the complainant. It is also important to note that the petitioner/convict is Khalazad of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that offence under section 354, P.P.C. is not made out as no injury was found on the person of alleged victim. He took us through the evidence of three prosecution witnesses. The testimony on record fully establishes the ingredients of the offence under section 354, P_P.C. The "assault" has been defined in section 351, P.P.C. "criminal force" has been defined in section 350, P.P.C. and it is idle to urge in the presence of the consistent statements of prosecution witnesses that offence under section 354, P.P.C. is not made out. Mst. Parveen P.W.1 stated that when she reached near the sugarcane field with the petitioner/accused, he caught her from her hand and made her fall on the ground. The accused then tried to open the string of her Shalwar which she strongly resisted. She also started crying and in the meanwhile the accused dragged her into sugarcane field up to two to three Karams. The accused had been trying to open the string of her Shalwar and was pressing her to allow him to commit Zina with her. On hearing her cries, her husband Safdar Ali P.W.3, her father Noor Din P.W.2 and Yasin P. W.1 the owner of the sugarcane field were attracted. The use of criminal force and assault is, therefore, apparent. Learned Courts below were, in the circumstances, justified in recording the conclusion that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was satisfactorily explained. The conclusions recorded by both the learned Courts below were properly and reasonably drawn. No case for interference is, thus, made out. Even the petition for leave to appeal is barred by limitation 57 days and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-61/S Leave refused.