Delay in FIR supreme court case law.

سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلے میں تاخیر کے بارے میں جو اصل الفاظ استعمال کیے، وہ مندرجہ ذیل ہیں:

- "تاخیر کے باوجود، ایف آئی آر درج کرنے میں تقریباً دو دن کا وقت لگا اور اس تاخیر کی کوئی قابل قبول وضاحت فراہم نہیں کی گئی۔"

- "مذکورہ تاخیر کی وجہ سے ایف آئی آر کی صداقت پر سوالات اٹھتے ہیں کیونکہ یہ ممکن ہے کہ ایف آئی آر کو جان بوجھ کر تأخیر سے درج کیا گیا ہو تاکہ جرم کو زیادہ سنگین ظاہر کیا جا سکے۔"

یہ الفاظ اس بات کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہیں کہ عدالت نے ایف آئی آر کی درج کرنے میں تاخیر کو کیس کی سچائی پر اثرانداز اور اس کی صداقت پر شک کا باعث سمجھا۔

**کیس کی تفصیلات:**

- **ملزمان اور متاثرہ:** محمد عمران (ملزم) کے خلاف مِسز ممتاز بی بی (متاثرہ) نے ایف آئی آر درج کروائی تھی۔

- **الزام:** ملزم پر ریپ (اغوا) اور غیر قانونی دخول (غیر قانونی داخلہ) کا الزام تھا۔

- **مقدمہ:** ایف آئی آر کے مطابق، محمد عمران نے 11 جولائی 2016 کو مِسز ممتاز بی بی کو زبردستی ایک کمرے میں لے جا کر ریپ کیا تھا۔ ایف آئی آر کی رپورٹ 13 جولائی 2016 کو درج کی گئی۔

- **عدالتی کارروائی:**

- ٹرائل کورٹ نے محمد عمران کو ریپ (سیکشن 376 PPC) اور غیر قانونی دخول (سیکشن 449 PPC) کے جرم میں سزا دی۔

- لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ملزم کی اپیل مسترد کر دی۔

- **سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ:**

- سپریم کورٹ نے کیس کی دوبارہ جانچ پڑتال کی اور پایا کہ متاثرہ نے بعد میں ملزم کو معاف کر دیا تھا اور اسے بے گناہ قرار دیا تھا۔

- عدالت نے اس نتیجے پر پہنچا کہ یہ کیس ریپ کے بجائے زنا (سیکشن 496-B PPC) کا ہے۔

- ملزم کی سزا کو ریپ کی سزا سے زنا کی سزا میں تبدیل کر دیا گیا اور غیر قانونی دخول کی سزا کو کم کر دیا گیا۔

**نتیجہ:**

عدالت نے ملزم کی سزا کو ریپ سے زنا کے الزام میں تبدیل کر دیا اور غیر قانونی دخول کی سزا کو کم کر دیا۔ عدالت نے متاثرہ کو بھی دفاع کا موقع نہ دینے پر سزا میں تبدیلی کی۔ اس فیصلے میں دو ججوں نے اکثریت میں فیصلہ سنایا، جبکہ ایک جج نے اس فیصلے پر اختلاف کیا۔

**کیس کی تفصیلات:**

- **ملزمان اور متاثرہ:** محمد عمران (ملزم) کے خلاف مِسز ممتاز بی بی (متاثرہ) نے ایف آئی آر درج کروائی تھی۔

- **الزام:** ملزم پر ریپ (اغوا) اور غیر قانونی دخول (غیر قانونی داخلہ) کا الزام تھا۔

- **عدالتی کارروائی:**

- ٹرائل کورٹ نے محمد عمران کو ریپ (سیکشن 376 PPC) اور غیر قانونی دخول (سیکشن 449 PPC) کے جرم میں سزا دی۔

- لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ملزم کی اپیل مسترد کر دی۔

- **سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ:**

- عدالت نے اس نتیجے پر پہنچا کہ یہ کیس ریپ کے بجائے زنا (سیکشن 496-B PPC) کا ہے۔

- ملزم کی سزا کو ریپ کی سزا سے زنا کی سزا میں تبدیل کر دیا گیا اور غیر قانونی دخول کی سزا کو کم کر دیا گیا۔

**نتیجہ:**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL

MRS. JUSTICE AYESHA A. MALIK

MR. JUSTICE MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

(Compromise)

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

(Against the judgment dated 17.05.2023 of the Lahore

High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal

No.452/2019)

Muhammad Imran

…Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

The State and another

…Respondent(s)

For the Applicant/

Petitioner:

Agha Nayyar Latif Awan, ASC

For the State:

Mr. Irfan Zia, Addl. P.G. Punjab

Date of Hearing:

26.06.2024

JUDGMENT

Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.- As per brief

allegations leveled by Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, complainant (PW-1), 04

years earlier to the registration of FIR, she was married to one

Gohar Aman. However, due to matrimonial disputes she was

divorced one month earlier by the said Gohar Aman. The

complainant thereafter started living in the house of her brother

namely Muhammad Zaman (PW-3). Muhammad Imran, petitioner,

was a friend of Muhammad Zaman who used to come to the house

of the complainant party. On 11-7-2016 at 08:00 PM (night), Mst.

Mumtaz Bibi, complainant, was alone in her house. In the

meanwhile, Muhammad Imran, petitioner, came to the house of

RIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

the complainant party and while entering the said house, he bolted

the outer gate of the house from inside, where-after, the petitioner

forcibly dragged the complainant towards a room of the abovementioned house where he committed rape with her after removing

her shalwar. The petitioner, thereafter, fled away from the spot.

After the occurrence, the complainant raised hue and cry,

whereupon, Muhammad Zaman (PW-3) and Muhammad Waseem

Akram (PW-2) attracted to the spot. Hence, the FIR (Ex.PA/1) of

the instant case.

The prosecution produced 09 witnesses before the

learned trial Court to prove the charge against the petitioner. After

recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the

learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as

under:-

Under Section 376 PPC

10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default

thereof to undergo 06-months SI.

Under Section 449 PPC

02-years RI with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof

to undergo 03-months S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

and the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also

extended to the petitioner.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the

learned Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court vide

judgment dated 17-5-2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 452/2019.

Hence, the instant Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal before this

Court bearing No. 725/2023.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

Although during the pendency of this case before this

Court, the petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous Application

No. 374/2024 for grant of permission to compound the offence

whereupon a report was requisitioned, which has been received

from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, and

according to the said report, the sole eye-witness of the case

namely Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, complainant (PW-1) has exonerated the

petitioner from the charge and she stated that due to some

misunderstanding she named the petitioner in this case and now

she is satisfied that the petitioner is innocent, hence, she has no

objection on the acquittal of the petitioner but it is noteworthy that

the complainant/victim did not exonerate the petitioner at the time

of recording of her statement by the learned trial Court and at that

time she supported the prosecution case. Furthermore, the offence

under Section 376 PPC is a non-compoundable offence, therefore,

the petitioner cannot be acquitted on the basis of the abovementioned ground. We, therefore, while dismissing Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No. 374/2024 for grant of permission to

compound the offence, proceed to decide the main Criminal

Petition No. 725/2023, on merits.

The main contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that it was not a case of rape punishable under

Section 376 PPC and at the most it was a case of fornication (zina

with consent) punishable under Section 496-B PPC. As mentioned

above, the complainant has already exonerated the petitioner from

the charge, therefore, no one appeared on behalf of the

complainant to oppose the above-referred contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner. However, learned Additional Prosecutor

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

General has controverted the above-mentioned argument of

learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing that according to

the facts of the case and evidence produced by the prosecution, it

is a case of rape punishable under Section 376 PPC.

It is true that as per report of Punjab Forensic Science

Agency, the DNA profile of Muhammad Imran, petitioner matched

with the DNA profile of semens detected on the vaginal swabs of

Mst.Mumtaz Bibi, complainant, which shows that illicit intercourse

took place between the petitioner and the complainant and the

complainant (PW-1) also alleged that the petitioner committed rape

with her but the moot point for determination before this Court is

that as to whether it is a case of rape punishable under Section

376 PPC or it a case of fornication (zina with consent) punishable

under Section 496-B PPC. In order to resolve the above-mentioned

controversy, we have noted that occurrence in this case took place

on 11-7-2016 at 08:00 PM (night) whereas the FIR was lodged on

13-7-2016 at 05:45 PM and, as such, there is a delay of about two

days in reporting the matter to the Police. It was so mentioned in

the FIR that brother of the complainant namely Muhammad

Zaman (PW-3) and another witness namely Muhammad Waseem

Akram (PW-2) attracted to the spot when the complainant raised

hue and cry after the occurrence but even then the FIR was not

promptly lodged and the complainant party kept on consulting

with each other for about two days. No plausible explanation has

been given by the prosecution for the above-mentioned delay in

reporting the matter to the Police. Under the circumstances, the

sanctity of truth cannot be attached to the FIR, as there was every

possibility that the FIR was lodged after deliberations while

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

narrating an exaggerated story to make the offence graver.

Although mere delay in such like cases is not always fatal to the

prosecution’s case but while keeping in view the other particular

facts of a case, the same may be relevant.

We have further noted that in the contents of the FIR

(Ex.PA/1), the complainant has herself stated that 04 years prior

to the occurrence, her marriage was solemnized with one Gohar

Aman but one month prior to the occurrence she (complainant)

was divorced by her husband and thereafter she was living in the

house of her brother namely Muhammad Zaman (PW-3). We have

also noted that Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, complainant, who is the sole

eye-witness of the occurrence has admitted during her crossexamination that prior to the registration of the instant FIR, earlier

another FIR bearing No. 145/16 under Section 294 PPC was

lodged by the Police of Police Station City A-Division

(Bahawalnagar) and she (complainant) as well as the present

petitioner Muhammad Imran, both were arrested by the Police in

the said case. The relevant parts of the statement of Mst.Mumtaz

Bibi, complainant, in this respect are reproduced hereunder for

ready reference:-

“It is correct that prior to registration of this case

on 23.05.2016 a case FIR No. 145/16 was registered

with P/S City A-Division U/S 294 PPC in which I was

arrested by Muhammad Afzal ASI complainant of said

FIR from Railway Colony, at that time I was arrested by

police official. ………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………....

It is correct that Imran accused present in court

was also an accused of said FIR and he was also

released on bail/surety before police. It is correct that

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

my brother Muhammad Zaman PW got me released on

bail/surety on 23.05.2016 in case FIR No. 145/16.”

It is, therefore, evident from the perusal of the abovementioned parts of the statement of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi,

complainant (PW-1) that she was earlier arrested by the Police

along with the petitioner in a case of obscene acts. It is further

noteworthy that although the complainant claimed that she was

forcibly dragged by the petitioner towards a room of her house

where the petitioner committed rape with her after forcibly

removing her shalwar but no signs of dragging have been

mentioned in the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.PB).

Similarly, no mark of dragging or mark of any laceration, bruise or

contusion was noted on the entire body of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi,

complainant by the Medical Officer Dr. Nayab Arshad (PW-9). It

was not alleged in the contents of the FIR or in the statement of

Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, complainant (PW-1) recorded by the learned

trial Court that the petitioner was armed with any firearm, churri,

danda or any other weapon at the time of occurrence due to which

the complainant became frightened and could not offer any

resistance. The petitioner was admittedly empty handed at the

time of occurrence. A female who is not a consenting party would

offer very strong resistance in a case of attempt to commit rape

with her by a male but as mentioned earlier in the instant case no

mark of violence whatsoever was noted on the entire body of Mst.

Mumtaz Bibi, complainant by the Medical Officer at the time of her

medical examination. Likewise, the allegation of forcibly removing

the clothes (shalwar) of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, complainant (PW-1) was

not corroborated with the recovery of any torn clothes of the

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

complainant. All the above-mentioned facts show that Mst.

Mumtaz Bibi, complainant was a consenting party. Under the

circumstances, we are of the view that ingredients of offence of

rape punishable under Section 376 PPC are not attracted in this

case rather it is a case of fornication (zina with consent) punishable

under Section 496-B PPC.

We are aware of the fact that once we hold that it is a

case of fornication punishable under Section 496-B PPC then Mst.

Mumtaz Bibi, complainant is also liable to be proceeded against

and punished as an accused of the offence of illicit intercourse

with consent but as she was not challaned by the Police and no

charge of fornication under Section 496-B PPC was framed against

her by the learned trial Court, thus, she had no opportunity to

defend herself, therefore, it will not be appropriate to punish her

without providing her opportunity of defence.

For what has been discussed above, by a majority of

2:1 (Justice Ayesha A. Malik dissenting), this petition is converted

into appeal, partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified

to the extent that conviction and sentence of the

petitioner/appellant under Section 376 PPC is set aside and

instead the petitioner/appellant is convicted under Section 496-B

PPC and is sentenced to 05 years rigorous imprisonment with the

fine of Rs.5000/- or in default whereof to further undergo 02

months simple imprisonment. As we have converted the conviction

and sentence of the petitioner/appellant from the charge under

Section 376 PPC to the offence under Section 496-B PPC,

therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant

under the charge of Section 449 PPC is also set-aside and the

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374/2024

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 725/2023

petitioner/appellant is convicted under Section 448 PPC and

sentenced to 01 year rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences

awarded to the petitioner/appellant shall run concurrently and

benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is also given to the

petitioner/appellant.

JUDGE

I Disagree with the

reasons and conclusion of

the majority opinion and

have added my dissent to

explain why.

JUDGE

Islamabad, the

26th of June, 2024

Not Approved For Reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.