Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi VS State Ss. 377 & 367-a---Rape, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the alleged occurrence took place on 31.01.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged with a noticeable delay of eight days on 08.02.2015---Said inordinate delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained on the part of the prosecution---Such factum alone created serious doubt not only about the veracity of the prosecution case but also suggested that consultation and due deliberation was made before lodging the FIR---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi VS State Ss. 377 & 367-a---Rape, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not in line with the ocular account---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the victim was medically examined on 08.02.2015 by Medical Officer, eight days after the occurrence---On going through testimony of victim, it was noticed that he had observed no marks of violence on elbow and knee of the victim, no marks of violence were seen around anal region of the victim, no tenderness, no swelling was observed---Three anal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for detection of semen and DNa analysis and final opinion was reserved till receiving of the reports---However, no seminal material was found present on the item sent to Forensic Science agency, vide report of Forensic Science agency---Medical Officer had himself admitted that no seminal material was identified according to the report of Forensic Science agency and that he could not tell anything whether sodomy was committed with the victim or not, meaning thereby that the medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution case rather it contradicted the same---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi VS State Ss. 377 & 367-a---Rape, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Doubts in prosecution case---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the victim and his mother/complainant were present before the Court and submitted that they had nominated the present accused/appellant on account of some confusion and they had got no objection, if, the appellant was acquitted from the charge---So, the conclusion was irresistible that the prosecution failed to prove its case 'beyond reasonable shadow' of doubt---Prosecution case was replete with number of doubts, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence, there was no forensic report qua the authenticity of video film, so, the benefit of such loopholes/lacunas in the prosecution case would go in favour of the accused---Prosecution was supposed to prove its case against the accused beyond 'reasonable shadow of doubt' and if any reasonable doubt arises from the prosecution story, the same shall be resolved in favour of the accused---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi VS State Ss. 377 & 367-a---Rape, sodomy---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Video recording of incident not sent for forensic analysis---accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that there was video recording CD which was exhibited before Trial Court---Said film was watched by Presiding Officer in the Court showing that the appellant was committing sodomy with victim and co-accused (since dead) was present at the spot while making video of the incident, so, Trial Court, while relying upon the said piece of evidence, convicted the appellant and his co-accused, who later on died during the pendency of his appeal and the appeal filed by him had been abated---However, that video film exhibited and relied upon by Trial Court was of no help for the prosecution as the same had not been forensically tested---Prosecution candidly admitted that the said video film taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation was never sent for forensic analysis, so the conclusion inescapable was that video in question was not aboveboard especially in the backdrop when the prosecution case had been totally belied by the medical evidence---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 2439 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR