Abduction and rape

2020 PLD 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 364-A & 376Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Chaps.XIV, XV, [Ss.154-199-B], Ss.190 & 193Abduction and rapeAppreciation of evidenceSummoning of accusedBenefit of doubtAccused was not nominated in FIR and the one who was duly nominated was acquitted

Accused was summoned under S.193 Cr.P.C. by Trial Court and after framing of charge he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

No incriminating evidence was collected against accused during course of investigation nor witnesses had deposed against him

No material was available against accused but charge was framed against him

During whole process of investigation and cognizance was taken into the matter by Court of law on the basis of material against co-accused who was acquitted

Allegedly only one person was involved in commission of offence, therefore, substitution of said single person with accused was against the Chaps. XIV & XV [Ss.154-199-B] of Cr.P.C.

Trial Court was not competent to issue notice for joining accused in the case

Joining of accused in the trial and passing of judgment by Trial Court was erroneous conclusion

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 365-B & 376(1)Abduction and rapeAppreciation of evidenceDelay of nineteen days in lodging FIREffect

Delay in lodging FIR in cases, where dignity and honour of a family due to abduction and rape of lady was involved, alone, did not matter

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 365-B & 376(1)Abduction and rapeAppreciation of evidenceMedical evidenceReport of chemical examiner was placed on the file, according to which commission of zina with the victim was proved

Accused was also medically examined and was found fully fit to perform sexual act but he declined to provide semen for the purpose of grouping, therefore, it was established that accused committed zina with the victim

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 365-B & 376(1)Abduction and rapeAppreciation of evidenceSolitary statement of victimEvidentiary value

Solitary statement of abductee/victim was sufficient to base conviction and sentence of accused.

2017 YLRN 283 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497 (2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376 & 452Abduction and rapeBail, grant ofNo specific role attributed to accusedCase of further inquiry

Accused was arrested for accompanying principal accused for abducting daughter of complainant and guarding premises when principal accused was committing Zina upon the prosecutrix

Validity

Such allegations required further inquiry and it was for Trial Court to thresh out truth at the trial

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

2011 MLD 797 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.376 & 365-B/34Abduction and rapeBail, refusal of

Accused party had allegedly taken the abductee from one place to. another on gun point and kept her for about six months in illegal confinement and subjected her to illegal sexual intercourse

Accused had been directly charged by the abductce for commission of such heinous immoral offence

Keeping in view the bare statement of abductee in mind, there was. no possibility of false implication of accused with commission of crime of such heinous nature

Accused and his co-accused had allegedly committed rape on the person of complainant, who was hardly 17/18 years of age

Medical evidence had fully supported the prosecution version

Prima facie, accused was reasonably connected with commission of offence of moral turpitude and heinous in nature, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail petition of accused, was dismissed, in circumstances.