PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 164

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1048 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran VS State Ss. 376 & 377-B---Rape, unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused were charged that they took the minor daughter of the complainant in a rickshaw and then raped her---Record showed that the testimony of complainant was not direct, and she stated what she was told by the victim---Testimony of victim clearly showed that she was not forcibly made to sit in the rickshaw driven by witness---According to victim, the accused and proclaimed offender were known to her and she willingly sat with them and proceeded to the crime scene---Place from where victim sat in the rickshaw was a populated area, but no one had been associated as witness---Rickshaw driver/witness denied to identify the accused before the Court---During cross-examination, said witness admitted that he recorded the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, before Judicial Magistrate---Said witness denied that he had made statement before Judicial Magistrate, wherein he had stated that accused present before the Court boarded in his rickshaw---Statement of said witness had neither been confronted with his previous statement made before the Police and Judicial Magistrate nor such part of his statement was confronted by the Investigating Officer, thus previous statement could not be taken into account---Story narrated by rickshaw driver beliedvictim and created doubt in the prosecution version---Moreover, there was also delay of four days in lodging the FIR which casted doubt and gave rise to deliberation and consultation, creating doubt in the ocular account---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the indictment---Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English