Sami Ullah vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 73 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Sami Ullah VS State S. 377---anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) act (XXX of 2021), S. 17---Sodomy, sexual abuse of minor---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---accused was charged for committing sodomy with minor son of complainant---Complainant reiterated what he had reported in his application---Complainant was not the eye-witness of the occurrence---Victim gave complainant the first hand information regarding commission of carnal intercourse with him by the accused---Uncle of the victim, who was residing with complainant and victim in the same house, testified that on 30.10.2021 at 9:00 o'clock victim told them that accused had sodomized him, whereafter he and his brother/complainant lodged the FIR---Complainant and his brother were cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to extract anything beneficial---Victim aged four years was the star witness---Trial Court before recording his testimony conducted a preliminary inquiry by putting questions to the victim in order to ascertain whether he was able to testify before the Court and capable enough to narrate the occurrence, after which the Trial Court concluded that the victim was able to testify, henceforth, his statement was recorded---Victim testified that on fateful night at 4:45 pm he went to the shop of accused to buy crackers, where the accused took him inside the shop and forcibly undressed him and sodomized him---Victim also stated that blood was oozing from his stool, whereof he apprised his father, whereafter they lodged the report---Victim identified the accused as the culprit of sodomy in the Court---Said witness was not cross-examined at length except suggesting questions of denial, thus his testimony went unshaken---Statement recorded by the victim under S.164, Cr.P.C, by Judicial Magistrate was of no significance, when the victim appeared and testified before the Court---Buccal and anal swab with clothes provided by Medical Officer were sent to Forensic Science agency for forensic, DNa and serology analysis, whereof report was issued, which affirmed the presence of spertozoman on different items strengthening the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the indictment without any shadow of doubt against the accused---However, due to peculiar circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the accused was reduced from life imprisonment to five (05) years---appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Sami Ullah vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 73 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ