IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 75-Q OF 2021

(On appeal against the judgment dated 01.07.2021 passed
by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal
Appeal No. 31/2020)

Zahid son of Muhammad Ishaq … Petitioner

VERSUS
The State … Respondent

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC

For the State: Mr. Baqir Shah, State counsel

Date of Hearing: 21.10.2021

ORDER

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was proceeded

against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 43/2020 under
Sections 377-B/354/511 PPC at Police Station Noshki for sexually
abusing the daughter of the complainant and for using criminal force to
the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated
12.06.2021 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
i) Under Section 377-B PPC
To suffer 5 years RI and to pay fine of Rs.500,000/- or in
default whereof to further suffer six months SI.

ii) Under Section 354 PPC

To suffer 2 years RI.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the
petitioner.

2. In appeal, the learned High Court vide impugned

judgment, upheld the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned
Trial Court. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.
3. The facts of the case as given in the impugned judgment
are as under:-
“2. Precise facts of the case are that on 27th March,
2020 case FIR No. 43 of 2020 under Sections 377-B, 354,
511 PPC was registered with PS Noshki on the report of
Mst. Najma wife of Ali Jan with the allegation that on
26.03.2020, at about 2:00 p.m. she sent her daughter
Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021
2

namely Shahida aged about 7 years to the shop for

bringing matchbox but she did not return whereupon she
herself went to the shop of Shafi Muhammad and asked
him about her daughter, who told that her daughter did
not come here, whereafter she searched her here and
there, in the meanwhile she heard hue and cry of her
daughter from the Baitak of her neighbor Zahid, as such
she knocked the door of the Baitak, whereupon accused
Zahid opened the door and she entered inside the room,
where her daughter was fully naked but Zahid did not
allow her to go ahead and attacked upon her and torn her
shirt and also threw away her minor child from her lap
thereafter she put clothes upon her daughter and went to
her house along with her daughter, where her daughter
Shahida told her that accused Zahid forcibly took her in
his Baitak, removed her clothes and attempted to give his
penis in her mouth.” The convict has done so even earlier.

4. After completion of the investigation, a challan under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The
prosecution in order to prove its case produced five witnesses. In his
statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C the petitioner pleaded his
innocence and also produced three witnesses in his defence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR
was registered after a delay of more than 22 hours, which shows that
it was registered after deliberation and consultation to falsely frame
the petitioner in the picture. Contends that the learned courts below
have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and undue
weight was given to the prosecution witnesses despite glaring
contradictions. Contends that no independent witness was produced
by the prosecution and all the witnesses who appeared before the
Court are interested one. Contends that the medical evidence does not
support the ocular account as no sign of injury was seen on the body of
the victim. Lastly contends that the impugned judgment being contrary
to law and facts, the same may be set aside and the petitioner may be
acquitted of the charge.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel defended the
impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner is involved in a
heinous offence and the evidence available on record is sufficient to
prove the case against him, therefore, he does not deserve any
leniency by this Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and have perused the evidence available on record.
Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021
3

In the instant case, the petitioner was proceeded against

in pursuance of the aforesaid crime report wherein serious allegations
are leveled against him. The most alarming allegation against the
petitioner is that he tried to sexually harass a young girl aged about 7
years, which is a very disgusting act. The petitioner was investigated
at length and was found involved as per accusation leveled in the
crime report. During the course of trial, the learned Trial Court after
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case
and the evidence available on the record convicted the petitioner as
stated above, which conviction and sentence was upheld by the
learned High Court. Today during the course of proceedings before us
we have carefully evaluated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
i.e. Mst. Najma, complainant (PW-1) and Mst. Shahida Bibi (PW-2). The
whole prosecution case qua ocular account hinges upon the testimonies
of these two witnesses. Amongst these two witnesses Mst. Shahida
Bibi happens to be the victim of the occurrence. While making her
statement in Court, she has narrated the whole occurrence in a very
mature and natural manner touching the contents of the crime report
on all aspects without any disconnection. Although the victim was of
tender age, however, her statement depicts maturity of the highest
level, which is in consonance with the statement of Mst. Najma (PW-1),
who happens to be her mother. The victim has directly charged the
petitioner for sexually abusing her while detailing the acts committed
by him on the day of occurrence. She has further alleged that the
petitioner was in the habit of doing this even earlier to the present
incident. Although she was cross-examined at length but her statement
remained in line and was testified in the most natural style, which
reflects that whatever she has stated before the Court, she has stated
the truth. As far as the identity of the petitioner is concerned, there is
not an iota of doubt about his identity because he being the neighborer
of the victim was conversant with her. It is an apathy to mention that
such like cases are at the verge of rise in the society, which has to be
curbed with iron hands. Although in the instant case, the statement of
the victim is fully corroborated by the statement of PW-1 but law is
very clear about this that the statement of the victim in isolation itself
is sufficient for conviction if the same reflects that it is independent,
unbiased and straight forward to establish the accusation against the
accused. In a recent judgment reported as Atif Zareef Vs. State (PLD
Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021
4

2021 SC 550) this Court has categorically held that “rape is a crime
that is usually committed in private, and there is hardly any witness
to provide direct evidence of having seen the commission of crime by
the accused person. The courts, therefore, do not insist upon
producing direct evidence to corroborate the testimony of the victim if
the same is found to be confidence inspiring in the overall particular
facts and circumstances of a case, and considers such a testimony
of the victim sufficient for conviction of the accused person. A rape
victim stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, for an
injured witness gets the injury on the physical form while the rape
victim suffers psychologically and emotionally.” The victim had
specifically named the petitioner in his testimony before the Court
and had fully identified him. There was no previous enmity between
the parties, which could lead to false implication of the petitioner in
the present case. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned,
the learned High Court while relying on the judgment of this Court
reported as Zahid Vs. State (2020 SCMR 590) has rightly held that
in such like cases victims or their families are reluctant to come
forward to promptly report the crime because of the trauma that has
been suffered and they may have a perception of shame or
dishonour in having the victim invasively examined by a doctor,
therefore, the delay in reporting a sexual assault to the police is not
very material. So far as the argument of learned counsel that
according to medical evidence no sign of injury was found on the
person of the victim is concerned, the prosecution case is that the
petitioner had sexually abused the minor girl by firstly undressing
her and then by touching his genital organ on the chest of the victim
and he also tried to put his organ in the mouth of the victim. In such
eventuality when the victim was only of seven years old and did not
know as to what is happening with her and keeping in view the fact
that the petitioner was known to her previously, the victim may not
have resisted in front of the petitioner, therefore, mere non-
availability of any sign of injury is of no help to the petitioner. We
have perused the statements of the three defence witnesses
produced by the petitioner and could not find any credibility in the
same. The DWs only made general statements and did not mention
about the happening of the occurrence or anything related to the
occurrence. They even could not remember the date of the incident.
Criminal Petition No. 75-Q/2021
5

As far as the plea of the petitioner in his statement under Section

342 Cr.P.C. that the husband of the complainant (PW-1) was out of
country and in his absence different people would visit her house
and when she was forbidden, a quarrel took place between the
complainant and his mother and due to this reason he was
implicated in this case is concerned, suffice it is to say that no one
would defame her minor daughter only on some minor quarrel
because the honor of female daughter is always more precious for a
mother to take revenge on a trifle issue, therefore, the same appears
to be a concocted story just to save the skin.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition having
no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

JUDGE

JUDGE
Islamabad, the
21st of October, 2021
Approved For Reporting
Khurram