Improbable occurrence

2013 YLR 1478 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B & 376-Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc. rapeBail, grant ofFurther inquiryImprobable occurrenceDelay in lodging of F.I.R.Implication based on supplementary statement of complainantDivergent stances taken by alleged victimEffectAccused and his two (co-accused) sons were alleged to have committed zina-bil-jabr with the alleged victimF.I.R. was registered with a delay of five days without any explanation

Names of accused and co-accused did not appear in the F.I.R. and they were introduced for the first time through a supplementary statement of the complainant, which was recorded without disclosing any source of information

Alleged victim recorded her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. before the investigation officer, wherein she did not level any allegation of committing zina-bil-jabr against the accused and co-accused

Alleged victim had also moved a petition before the Justice of Peace for registration of F.I.R. wherein she mentioned that she had contracted marriage with one of the co-accused of her own free will and she was being harassed by police at the behest of her father and brothers

Alleged abductee kept on changing her stance at different stages before different forums

Such divergent stands taken by the alleged victim cast serious doubt on the prosecution story

Fact that a father would commit zina-bil-jabr with a girl along with his own sons, especially when she was the wife of one of his sons, did not appeal to a prudent mind

One of the co-accused was a school going student and was twelve and a half years old

School attendance sheet of said co-accused was also produced to establish his plea of alibi

Case was one of further inquiry into guilt of accused and co-accused, and they were admitted to bail accordingly.

2013 YLR 911 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.496-A & 376/34Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, rape, common intentionContra-dictions in statements of alleged victimImprobable occurrenceComplainant exonerating the accusedEffectAccused allegedly kidnapped his daughter-in-law, confined her in a house and committed zina with herComplainant/husband of alleged victim registered the F.I.R. nine days after getting knowledge of the incidentSuch delay in lodging of F.I.R. was astonishingAccused allegedly kept the alleged victim confined in house, wherein other female and children were also living

Question was as to why alleged victim did not disclose the fact of her abduction to the other people living in the house

Even otherwise it could not be explained as to why accused let the alleged victim walk out of the house, where he allegedly confined her and committed zina with her

Complainant and his mother, who were star witnesses of the case, had exonerated the accused from the commission of the offence and stated that case was managed against accused due to enmity

Contradictions existed in statements of alleged victim under Ss. 161 and 164, Cr.P.C

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103Possession of narcoticAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtImprobable occurrenceRoznamcha entries not producedNon-association of private persons despite recovery being made from a populated placeDelay in sending samples for examinationEffect

While on patrol duty police allegedly apprehended accused near a shrine and recovered 600 grams of charas from his possession, which was packed in a plastic bag

Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused contended that Station House Officer (SHO) demanded illegal gratification from him, and when he refused to pay, present case was registered against him; that plastic bag which contained the recovered charas was not shown as case property; that samples were sent for examination with a delay, and that no private witnesses were engaged during recovery proceedings despite the fact that large number of persons were present near the shrine

Validity

Prosecution story appeared to be unnatural and unbelievable and evidence of police officials did not inspire confidence

Original Roznamcha entries regarding departure of police for patrolling had not been produced in court

Private persons were always present at the shrine but police had made no efforts to engage private persons to act as mashirs

Police alleged that no private persons were available near the shrine, therefore, question arose that to whom the accused was selling charas, if there was no body present there

Delay of four days in sending samples for examination made the prosecution case doubtful

Prosecution's case was that one piece of charas was sent for examination, however report of Chemical Examiner stated that he had received five pieces

Plastic bag which allegedly contained the recovered charas was not produced before the Trial Court

No reliance could be placed on evidence of police officials without independent corroboration since accused had raised a specific plea that Station House Officer (SHO) had registered present case against him because of non-payment of illegal gratification

During investigation no material was collected against accused regarding his involvement in narcotic cases

Prosecution case was doubtful

Benefit of doubt was extended to accused

Appeal was allowed and conviction of accused was set aside.