Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN vs State arts

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State arts. 3 & 17---Child witness, competency of---Child is fully competent to depose before a court of law subject to his/her capacity and intellect to understand what he/she deposes about---Whether a child is a competent witness or not and whether he/she passes the 'rationality test' is something which is to be decided by the court in accordance with art. 3 read with art. 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, after carrying out 'voir dire' which means speak the truth. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149--- Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence--- acquittal of co-accused on same set of evidence---Rule of consistency---accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her---In the present case, Twenty-two (22) persons were indicted and stood trial---Seven accused were convicted and rest fifteen (15) accused were acquitted---Where same set of witnesses is disbelieved qua number of accused persons implicated in the case, it cannot be made foundation for conviction of rest of the accused persons in absence of strong and independent corroboration, which was conspicuously missing in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account---accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her---Ocular account was furnished through the complainant and one of the victims of occurrence, i.e. daughter of complainant---accused were nominated in the crime report despite the admitted fact that they were not previously known to the complainant of the case---Complainant stated during his cross-examination that accused were not known to him prior to the occurrence---Prosecution could not furnish any explanation as to how complainant got to know the names of accused persons nominated in the crime report---Victim also admitted such fact during her cross-examination that accused persons were not previously known to her---Said sole fact led to the inference that complainant got recorded the FIR after due deliberation and consultation as alleged by the accused side---Implication of all the accused persons by the name by the prosecutrix was also astonishing because it was admitted by her that accused persons were not known to her before the occurrence---although prosecutrix tried to cover-up that deficiency by stating that she came to know about the names of accused persons during her confinement where they used to call each other by their names but that fact was negated from her own statement---Prosecutrix specifically mentioned in her statement before Trial Court that she was kept there by the accused persons and they committed rape with her without her consent---Prosecutrix failed to explain as to how she got to know about the names of the remaining accused persons because she did not allege that all other accused persons also used to visit the place of her captivity---One could easily infer that she did not get her statement recorded at her own rather same was recorded upon the dictation of her father i.e. complainant of the case, as he admitted in his statement---Prosecution version qua the escape of victim from the confinement of accused persons was also highly unbelievable---according to prosecutrix, when she got herself extricated from the clutches of accused persons and ran away from the place of her confinement, she met her husband and he took her to the police station, where she got recorded her statement and was medically examined thereafter---On the other hand, in her cross examination, she stated that at the time of recording her statement, her father and others accompanied her and that fact had also created doubt about her story regarding her extrication and recording of her statement before the local police especially when it was specifically asserted by the complainant that both the abductees were produced by him before the police and statements of both the abductees were also recorded on his dictation---Moreover, neither the prosecutrix pointed out her place of confinement nor did Investigating Officer visit the same---according to the prosecutrix she and her daughter were taken to the house of some person but astonishingly he was not joined into investigation by the Investigating Officer---Not pointing out the place of occurrence, despite the fact that victim extricated herself from accused persons and came to police station, created serious dent in prosecution case and made it highly doubtful---In the such circumstances, prosecution story qua the abduction of prosecutrix and her daughter and how they became free from the clutches of accused persons was shrouded in mystery and could not be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt---Ocular account was full of doubts and contradiction qua the manner and mode of occurrence, hence, could not be relied upon being result of consultation and deliberation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 17850 - 17900 Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149--- Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons of offence and crime empties---Reliance---accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her---Record showed that no crime empty was taken into possession by Investigating Officer from the alleged place of occurrence---Surprisingly, not a single crime empty could be recovered from place of occurrence despite the fact that it was alleged by the complainant that accused persons made indiscriminate firing for about half an hour---alleged recovery of firearms on the pointing out of accused persons during the investigation remained legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the occurrence in issue---In these circumstances, recovery of crime weapons was of no avail to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding guilt of an accused is sufficient to extend such benefit to accused person(s) not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right without slightest of hesitation. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 129(g)--- Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding best evidence---One of the abductees not produced as witness---accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her---Surprisingly, whole of prosecution's story was silent about the recovery of minor abductee---No prosecution witness uttered a single word regarding the date, place, time etc. of release of said minor abductee---astonishingly, minor victim was also not produced as witness in the Court despite the fact that she was a star witnesses of prosecution case being one of the abductees of the occurrence---Silence of prosecution story regarding her recovery and her non-production before the trial Court had raised serious doubts about the prosecution story---Prosecution gave up minor victim because of being a minor---Giving up a witness as unnecessary or won over was prerogative of prosecution and it was at liberty to produce as many witnesses as it thought fit to prove its case against the accused---However, giving up a witness only because she was minor had no legal justification---In the circumstances, minor victim could have been the most natural witness of the occurrence and an adverse inference could legitimately be drawn under art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that had she been produced, she would have not supported the case of the prosecution---according to crime report there were three other prosecution witnesses, who witnessed the abduction of prosecutrix and her daughter, but they were not produced before the Trial Court, hence prosecution withheld their evidence too---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Recovery of crime weapon---Evidentiary value---Recovery of crime weapon is only a corroborative piece of evidence and same is valueless in the absence of credible direct evidence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149--- Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Reliance---accused were charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant along with her minor daughter and raping her---Medical expert was in a better position to confirm the allegation of prosecutrix regarding her alleged rape by the accused persons---Perusal of the statement of Medical Expert i.e. Woman Medical Officer delineated that although she observed two abrasions on upper side of left thigh and three fresh abrasions on the upper side of right thigh but she had specifically stated that she neither saw any suspected spots or stains nor any marks of injury or violence on the body and the pubic area---Further, three vaginal swabs were taken by the Woman Medical Officer and were sent to Chemical Examiner for forensic examination---after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner, Medical Expert had opined that no fresh act of sexual intercourse was done with victim---Chemical Examiner had not observed any semen (spermatozoa) on the vaginal swabs despite the fact that victim had alleged that accused persons committed rape with her regularly for consecutive seventeen days of her confinement---Though Law Officer had tried to justify the absence of semen by contending that as she was medically examined after a considerable span of time as she went to the police station first to get her statement recorded and thereafter got herself medically examined, therefore, seminal material could not be detected from the vaginal swabs, but said fact was not acceptable because 'Motile Spermatozoa' could be found for as long as 100 hours and non-motile for as long as 17 days---Sperms remained motile in the vagina for about two to three hours and non-motile forms were detectible for about twenty four hours and the sperms remained motile in the uterine cavity for 3-4 days--- In view of the said facts, absence of any motile and immotile sperm on vaginal swabs and opinion of Medical Expert had negated the version of prosecutrix regarding her alleged gang-rape---Prosecutrix also stated in her testimony that her clothes were fully stained with sperms (spermatozoa) of accused persons who allegedly committed rape with her continuously for seventeen days---astonishingly those clothes of the prosecutrix were neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor sent for DNa test---Such aspect of the case further adversely hit the veracity of prosecution case and benefit of such doubt would go in favor of none else but the accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 364-a, 365-B, 376(2), 452, 148 & 149--- Kidnapping, Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of four days in lodging FIR---accused were charged for kidnapping the prosecutrix/ victim along with her minor daughter and raping her---Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the crime report was that a relative of complainant side had abducted a lady of accused side and in order to take revenge of her abduction, accused persons had committed the occurrence---according to prosecution story crime was reported to police with an extraordinary delay of four days for which no plausible explanation could be furnished---admittedly, the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and police station was only 08-km---Extraordinary delay in reporting the alleged occurrence to police clearly suggested that possibility of deliberation, consultation and concoction could not be ruled out---When there was delay in reporting the incident to the police then prosecution was under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that would badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version---Circumstances established that the prosecution had absolutely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FIDA HUSSAIN vs State arts — 2023 PCrLJ 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ