Saif-ur-Rehman vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 176 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.

Saif-ur-Rehman VS State S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, conducted the examination of victim and observed that blood was oozing from the external anal region and both buttocks were wet with blood, though he also took samples of anal swab, however, the statement of said witness was silent with regard to the specific performance of intercourse---Besides, said witness deposed in his Court statement that asurgeon was called for expert opinion, but the perusal of record revealed that prosecution had failed to produce the said surgeon---Even otherwise, the opinion of the referred Medical Officer was also not available on record---However, after examination of anal swabs, the Forensic Science Agency issued report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpired that the anal swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen, which even otherwise negated the ocular testimony---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 176 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Saif-ur-Rehman VS State S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Occurrence took place on 25th October 2022 at about 08.45 a.m., whereas the distance between the Police Station and the house of complainant was about 02 kilometers, hence it was expected that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any delay, but perusal of FIR revealed that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025 at about 02:15 p.m. i.e. after delay of about six hours and the prosecution had failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to inordinate delay in prompt lodging of FIR---Main purpose of lodging FIR was to set criminal law in motion and to bring on record first-hand information about the occurrence of a crime---Besides, it provided a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right direction excluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story---In view of the circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR could not be taken lightly and it casted serious doubts in the case of the prosecution---Delay in lodging the FIR could only be condoned, when such delay had been adequately explained but in the instant case, there was no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging FIR---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 176 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Saif-ur-Rehman VS State S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictory statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record reflected that the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge had produced the evidence of nine witnesses---Minute security of all the said witnesses transpired that the crime was not directly witnessed by them rather all the witnesses were present either in their houses or at the work place, hence the statements of said witnesses were hearsay evidence, which otherwise was not helpful to the case of prosecution---Victim though described the whole story by stating that on 25th October 2023 he was sitting in front of his house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m. accused came there and asked him to watch his house, as he intended to attend a funeral ceremony, then took him to his house, where the accused committed unnatural offence with him---While contrary to the same, the complainant deposed in his Court statement that on the day of incident at about 08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as such, received a telephone call, whereby he was informed about the occurrence---During the course of cross-examination, the victim deposed that his father was a rickshaw driver on those days, whereas the complainant stated that he was working in his cultivated land on the day of incident---Victim stated that on the said date another person namely "A" came to his house along with his father, while said witness "A" negated narration of victim in his Court statement, whereby he deposed that he was present in his house, on listening of hue and cry, he promptly reached to the house of complainant, where on his query, the victim disclosed to him that accused committed sodomy with him and he was bleeding and his shalwar was also blood stained---Thus, such contradictory statement of a star witness created serious dents in the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Saif-ur-Rehman vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 176 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ