377 Acquittal in child abuse case. The incident took place in a factory but there was no witness from the factory. The investigator did not take the statements of all the residents of the neighborhood, did not produce a doctor and did not prove it through medical examination. Accused acquitted. 2024 Y L R 913
 |
| Acquittal in child abuse case. The incident took place in a factory but there was no witness from the factory. The investigator did not take the statements of all the residents of the neighborhood, did not produce a doctor and did not prove it through medical examination. Accused acquitted. 2024 Y L R 913 |
تفصیل:
1. گواہان کی غیر موجودگی:
پراسیکیوشن نے کیس کے اہم گواہوں کو پیش نہیں کیا۔ خاص طور پر، وقوعہ کی جگہ (کریکھانہ) کے کسی گواہ کو عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا، حالانکہ وہ اس معاملے میں اہم ہو سکتے تھے۔ اس کے علاوہ، متاثرہ لڑکے کے والد کا بیان بھی قابلِ اعتماد نہیں تھا کیونکہ وہ وقوعہ کا عینی شاہد نہیں تھے۔
2. شہادتوں کی کمی:
ایف آئی آر میں ایک دن کی تاخیر تھی، اور اس تاخیر کی کوئی معقول وضاحت نہیں دی گئی۔
میڈیکل رپورٹ میں بھی جنسی مواد (seminal material) کا کوئی نشان نہیں ملا، جو ملزم کی ملوثیت کو ثابت کرتا۔
ملزم کے خلاف دیگر اہم شہادتیں بھی پیش نہیں کی گئیں، جیسے کہ متاثرہ لڑکے کے ساتھ بدفعلی کے وقت شور نہ مچانے کی بات جس پر ملزم کا دفاع قائم تھا۔
3. مجموعی طور پر:
عدالت نے پراسیکیوشن کی شواہد کی کمی اور گواہوں کی غیر موجودگی کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے کیس کو ناکافی قرار دیا اور ملزم کو فائدہ دیتے ہوئے اسے بری کر دیا۔
یہ فیصلہ اس بات پر زور دیتا ہے کہ کسی بھی جرم کی سزا کے لیے شواہد کی مضبوطی اور گواہوں کی موجودگی ضروری ہوتی ہے۔
2024 Y L R 913
[Sindh]
Before Irshad Ali Shah, J
Syed INAYAT---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 5 of 2023, decided on 21st August, 2023.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 377-B---Unnatural offences---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he had subjected the victim (young boy) to carnal intercourse---Record revealed that victim as a prosecution witness stated that on the date of incident he was asked by the appellant (accused) to purchase meal and deliver the same at his house; when he was going to deliver the same, he was followed by the appellant and he locked the door of his house and committed sodomy with him; he then narrated the incident to his father who lodged report of the incident with the Police---First Information Report was lodged with delay of about 01 day of the actual incident ; such delay having not been explained plausibly, could not be overlooked---Victim, on asking, also stated that place of indent was Karkhana and he did not shout when its lock was closed by the appellant---No one from the Karkhana had been examined by the prosecution---Evidence of the complainant (father of the victim) was of little help to the case of prosecution for the reason that he was not an eye-witness---As per Medical Officer, the victim was examined by another doctor (in-charge of surgical unit) but said doctor had not been examined by the prosecution, and his non-examination could not be over-looked---No seminal material was identified on anal swab of the victim which could have connected the appellant in commission of the incident--- Investigation Officer, on asking, was fair enough to say that he recorded statements of mohalla (locality) people---None of them were examined by the prosecution and their non-examination could not be overlooked---Thus, the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Criminal jail appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.
Mehmood Ahmed and others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR127 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 ref.
Ms. Roop Mala Singh for Appellant.
Khadim Hussain Khuharo, Addl. P.G. for the State.
Comments
Post a Comment