Nauman Butt vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1301 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

Nauman Butt VS State Ss. 341, 342 & 377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act (V of 1985), S. 12---Wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, unnatural offence, kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to unnatural lust---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Mitigating circumstances---Accused were charged for committing unnatural offence with the complainant after abducting him---Statement from the Investigating Officer, asserting that abduction was not proven, particularly in a case where the victim had provided a detailed and coherent account of being forcibly taken by the convicts to the location of the incident, followed by the commission of sodomy by one of them, raised concerns about the adequacy and diligence of the investigation---Such ambiguity in the Investigating Officer's statement did not negate the victim's testimony, which was pivotal and corroborated by other evidence on record---Entire trial could not be nullified or vitiated merely on the basis of a single contradictory or ambiguous statement made by one of the prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer---Accused were entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt that arose from inconsistencies in witness statements or evidence---Law recognized that lapses or discrepancies in the investigation process may occurr, but such deficiencies should not lead to a wholesale rejection of otherwise compelling evidence---Such shortcomings, if any, may be appropriately considered in the context of mitigating the sentences awarded to the convicts---One matter of concern that required attention was the inadvertence on the part of the Medical Officer in failing to explicitly use the term "penetration" or "canal intercourse," which were essential elements for establishing an offence under S.377 A.P.C---Appellants argued that the absence of the term "penetration," undermined the claim that an offence under S.377 A.P.C was committed, however, Medical Officer's report, and physical evidence, such as external sphincter and presence of bruises, strongly suggested that penetration or carnal intercourse did occur---While the lack of precise medical terminology was relevant it did not overshadow the broader facts and context of the case---Failure to use specific terminology did not negate the reality of the crime---Nonetheless, such lapse had provided the appellant an opportunity to seek mitigation of offence committed---Thus, the conviction of accused "AD" and "AB" was upheld, however, their punishment was reduced to the sentence they had already undergone---Conviction of accused "NB" was upheld, however the sentences of life imprisonment imposed under S.12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, was reduced to imprisonment of ten years---Under S.377, A.P.C, life imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment for ten years---Appeal was partly accepted with modification in sentence.

Nauman Butt vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1301 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR