Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Limitation---Scope---Accused was charged for committing carnal intercourse with thenephew of the complainant---Record showed that the appeal had been filed under S. 417-A,Cr.P.C., and the limitation for filing such appeal was thirty (30) days from the date ofpassing of order/judgment---In the present case, the impugned judgment was passed on27.12.2018 and the appeal, was filed before High Court on 18.02.2019 after fifty-three (53)days which was barred by time---Neither the appellant filed application under S. 5 of theLimitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay nor explained each and every day of delay infiling of the appeal---Appeal was dismissed being barred by law of limitation.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Condonation of delay---Scope---Delay of each day had to be satisfactorilyexplained, as after expiry of limitation period a vested right was created in favour of theother party which could not be easily brushed aside as the law always helped the vigilant andnot the indolent.Lt. col. Nasir Malik v. Additional District Judge Lahore, 2016 SCMR 1821 rel.(c) Criminal trial-------Evidence--- Solitary statement of victim--- Scope--- Conviction could be recorded on thesolitary statement of the victim provided that the same was corroborated by the othercircumstantial evidence, particularly, with the opinion rendered by the medical witness.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Accused was charged for committing carnal intercourse with the nephew of the complainant---Record showed that neither the complainant nor anyone else was eye-witness of the alleged occurrence---Neither first condition of the eye-witness nor the second condition with regardto corroboration of the medical evidence with the solitary statement of the victim wasproduced in the trial court---Appellant had failed to point out any defect in the impugnedjudgment, therefore, the appeal against acquittal being devoid of merits was accordinglydismissed in limine.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Medical evidence---Scope---Medical jurisprudence---Procedure to check sodomy---Principles---Accused was charged for committing carnal intercourse with the nephew of thecomplainant---Medical witness rendered his observation that there was no penetration,browse on anal and tenderness on anal canal---During cross-examination, Medical witnessstated that due to warm infections, the child had scratches on his anal canal and during crossexamination further stated that in expert opinion no sodomy was committed and it was onlyan attempt---Witness stated during cross-examination that there were no injuries on the kneesof the victim and no injuries on his person---Section 377, P.P.C., provided that the offenceswould be completed when the carnal intercourse was taken place---Law provided that forconstituting an offence under said section and to establish the carnal intercourse, thepenetration was a condition precedent, therefore, the explanation provided in S. 377, P.P.C.,stated that "penetration was sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse---Victim was silentabout penetration, while the opinion rendered by the Medical witness was not conclusive---Medical jurisprudence provided a complete procedure for examining the victim of sodomy---Medical opinion rendered by a Medical witness was not in line with the procedurecontemplated in the medical jurisprudence, therefore, it was instructed to produce therelevant procedure for medical examination of the victim of sodomy as provided in theMedical Jurisprudence---In the present case, Medico Legal Report stated about thetenderness of anal region which under the medical jurisprudence could be caused due toconstipation or in case of irregular bowel habits---Doctor had also failed to use theProctoscopy instrument in order to obtain the anal swab and did not notice any abrasion orinjury on the anal region of the alleged victim---Statement of victim was silent aboutpenetration, thus without obtaining the anal swab of the victim and in the absence of positivereport with regard to semen-stained clothes of the victim and the accused and without gettingblood group of accused in order to match the semen stains found on the victims clothes, onmere tenderness of the anal region no conclusive opinion could be rendered as to whethersodomy had been committed or not---Sample was taken from the shalwar of the accused butno report of Forensic Expert was produced before the court, which created a reasonabledoubt in the prosecution case---Accused was also of 11/12 years, and the victim was of 8/9years and there were no such injuries on the person of the victim---Said aspect of the casealso caused reasonable doubt in the prosecution---Appellant had failed to point out anydefect in the impugned Judgment, therefore, the appeal against acquittal being devoid ofmerits was accordingly dismissed in limine.(f) Appeal against acquittal-------Double presumption of innocence---Interference---Scope---Acquittal carried with it double presumption of innocence---Acquittal order could be reversed only when foundblatantly perverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage ofjustice---Same could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contra view.

Summary: Bail granted----In this legal petition under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in connection with FIR. The charges involve offenses 324 PPC, 334 PPC, 336 PPC, 377-A, including causing injuries with a hockey stick to the complainant's brother.The petitioner had previously sought bail, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he claimed juvenile status, and the trial court, after examining birth records, declared him a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The judgment emphasized Pakistan's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the obligation to safeguard children's rights. It discussed the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and the establishment of Juvenile Courts. The court noted that the delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner and cites international and domestic legal obligations to protect the rights of juveniles. It referred to the repealed Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the current Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which reduced the statutory delay for bail eligibility to six months. The court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial proceedings and the intention to record the complainant's statement through video link due to the complainant's residence abroad. The judgment underscored the petitioner's right to liberty and a speedy trial, granting post-arrest bail, subject to conditions.

Summary: Background:Najam-ul-Hassan alias Irshad (Petitioner/Accused) filed a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.02/2020, registered under Sections 364-A, 377, and 511 PPC at Police Station Sikandarabad, District Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner were that he committed sodomy with Qamar Abbas, a 14-year-old boy, on 10-01-2020. The complaint was lodged by the victim's brother, Arfan Hussain, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner's initial bail request was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagar on 03-03-2020.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the absence of a Medico Legal Report and the lack of recovery of a pistol from the petitioner warrant further inquiry into the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR, with the complainant himself witnessing the occurrence. The victim's statement corroborated the FIR.The court noted that the offense under Section 377 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, which generally precludes bail.The court found that the Medico Legal Report, which noted abrasive wounds on the victim, provided prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense.The court rejected the petitioner's argument of false implication due to prior civil litigation between the families, finding no evidence of enmity that could lead to such a false accusation.The court emphasized the moral turpitude of the offense and deemed the petitioner undeserving of bail under discretionary powers.---Citations/Precedents:The decision relied on principles regarding the prohibitory clause under Section 497 Cr.P.C and the discretionary powers of the court in granting bail for offenses of moral turpitude. Specific case laws or precedents were not mentioned in the judgment.

Summary: Bail denied --- The document pertains to a bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C., where the petitioner seeks relief from arrest for an offense under Section 377 PPC. The petitioner was accused of committing an unnatural offense with the complainant's 10-year-old son. The petitioner's counsel argued innocence, citing false implication and lack of supporting evidence. The prosecution counters, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court dismissed the bail application, noting the occurrence's sensitivity. Additionally, the document highlighted the importance of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases and addresses lapses in evidence collection procedures, directing authorities to adhere to guidelines for better forensic practices.

Summary: Bail denied---Issues:Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution's case.Whether the medico-legal report's findings entitle the petitioner to bail.Whether the FIR lodged based on inquiry reports, rather than a direct complaint by the victim or her family, affects the case for bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court denied the petition for post-arrest bail, reasoning that:The victim?s statement under Section 161 Cr.PC clearly implicated the petitioner.Inquiry reports by the Assistant Commissioner Chorbat and the Social Welfare Officer Ghanche corroborated the allegations against the petitioner.The delay in lodging the FIR and the negative medico-legal report did not outweigh the evidence collected during the investigation.The nature of the offences, involving moral turpitude with a minor, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.PC, making the petitioner ineligible for bail.---Citations/Precedents:Sections 376, 493-A, 377-B PPC (Pakistan Penal Code)Section 497 Cr.PC (Provisions regarding bail)Section 161 Cr.PC (Statements to police not to be signed)Judgment:Bail petition is dismissed.The petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it promptly.

Summary: Background:In Cr. Appeal No. 14/2017, the appellant Mujahid Hussain challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 377, 324, and 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The conviction was handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court Gilgit on 24-03-2017. Mujahid Hussain was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under section 377 PPC, five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 under section 324 PPC, and one year of imprisonment under section 297 PPC.----Issues:Whether the impugned judgment/conviction order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and facts.Whether the compromise between the complainant and the appellant/convict can be considered for reduction of the sentence.Whether the appellant/convict should be acquitted based on the compromise.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court modified the sentence of the appellant while maintaining the conviction. The key points of the judgment are:Prosecution Case: The appellant abducted a minor, committed sodomy, and attempted to murder the victim. The victim was found injured and the appellant fled the scene. The police arrested the appellant and a case was registered.Trial and Conviction: The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including testimonies and medical reports. The appellant was sentenced under sections 377, 324, and 297 PPC.Compromise: The complainant, on intervention of a jirga, entered into a compromise with the appellant and recorded a statement in court stating no objection to the appellant?s acquittal. The court had already released the appellant on bail based on this compromise.Sentence Modification: While section 377 PPC is not compoundable, the court considered the compromise for reducing the sentence. The appellant had already served more than half of his sentence, including remissions. The court found it just to reduce the sentence from ten years to three years of rigorous imprisonment already served. The fine was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000, to be deposited within one week, failing which the appellant would undergo two months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine under section 324 PPC was set aside.With these modifications, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was maintained with reduced sentences.---Citations/Precedents:Section 377, 324, and 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)Bail order dated 03-02-2018 based on the compromise between the complainant and the appellant

Summary: Bail denied ---- sodomy case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 265-D-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), Ss.53 & 61-When charge to be framed-Omission to frame charge under relevant section-Effect-Accused assailed his conviction under S. 377, P.P.C.-Validity-Complete challan against accused was submitted by police under S.377, P.P.C., read with S. 53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 but the Trial Court had framed charge only under S.377, P.P.C. and nothing was available on record to show that the Trial Court had found S.53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, to be not applicable-Section 61 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, provided that the provisions of the Act had an overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, with the exception of any section or sections of any other law, which could be more protective in case of a child at risk-Section 377, P.P.C. was more protective in the present case-Omission of Trial Court to frame charge under S.53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, was against the parameters of law and thus, the impugned judgment was not sustainable in the eyes of law-Appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for de-novo trial. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010)- -S. 53-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377-Sexual abuse-Unnatural offence-Scope-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 has been promulgated to provide for the care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education, rehabilitation and reintegration of children at risk in the province and the Act has been given overriding effect-Practice of police registering cases against accused persons simultaneously under S.377, P.P.C. and S.53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 is not justified. (c) Interpretation of statutes- -Special and general law-Scope-Special law overrides the general law. (d) Interpretation of statutes- -Parallel laws-Scope-Where there are two parallel laws then the law which is later in time would prevail. Mahmood Khan Achakzai and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 426 ref. Adnan Ali, Asstt: A.G. for the State.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused wascharged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recordingvideos---In the present case, statements of prosecution witnesses established the fact that theaccused had been sexually assaulting the minor girls of the Mohallah---All the witnesses hadbrought on record that soon after getting information, the accused was arrested and afterwatching the snaps and videos they were shocked that the accused was sexually assaultingthe minor girls---Confession of accused was recorded before Judicial Magistrate---Courtstatements of witnesses were fully in line with the confessional statements under S.164,Cr.P.C. as well as their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under S.161,Cr.P.C.---Defence had failed to point out any minor contradiction or dishonest improvementin all the statements of witnesses---Even otherwise, a minor child could be defamed forwhole life, no father or elder brother would involve an innocent person in the false case---Nosuggestion was put forth to the effect that the complainant or the victim had any animosity orill will against the accused---Defence had failed to bring on record any ill-will or ulteriormotives on the part of witnesses for false implication of the accused---Record showed thatthough number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution hadfailed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution,though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had also kept mum till thearrest of the accused, thus, in such circumstances, awarding of capital punishment to theaccused was unwarranted---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted intoimprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification insentence, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Statements ofvictims---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Prosecution case had been strengthened by thestatements of two minor victims---Statements of both the said victims were fullycorroborating each other on all material counts---Despite lengthy cross-examination, thedefence had failed to give dent or damage to their testimonies---Undisputedly, the victims ofthe offence were minors less than the age of 10-years and a school going girls, who did notcarry any ill will, grudge or malice against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Evidence of both the victims had been fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well asthe other circumstantial evidence including the expert report, who carried out the analysis ofphotos and videos---Testimony of the victim could not be impeached or discredited thoughsubjected to test of cross-examination by the defence---Record showed that though numberof victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed toproduce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution though herCourt statement was also available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest ofthe accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, incircumstances---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted into imprisonmentfor life---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence, in circumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 376---Rape---Sole statement of victim---Scope---In case of sodomy or zina the solitarystatement of victim would be sufficient to convict the accused if it was confidence-inspiring.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Medicalevidence---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainantand taking snaps and recording videos---Record showed that the case of prosecution had alsobeen strengthened from the medical evidence produced through Lady Police Surgeon---Perusal of Medico-Legal Certificates had established the fact that the hymens of victimswere not intact and that the sexual act was performed with them---Investigating Officer alsoproduced the accused before Medical Officer, who after examination issued Medico-LegalCertificate, perusal of which also established the fact that the accused was potent and wasable to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Record showed that though number of victimswere named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed to produce all thevictims---A major victim was not produced by the prosecution, though her Court statementwas available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs, criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Recovery ofincriminating material---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter ofcomplainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Case of prosecution had also gotstrength from the recoveries of smart phone, computer C.P.U. and USB---Raid wasconducted in the house of accused and during the course thereof smart phone was recoveredfrom personal possession of accused, while the search of his house was resulted intorecovery of computer C.P.U. and USB---Said articles were also produced in the Trial Courtand on the request of prosecution the memory card already recovered from the possession ofaccused as well as his smart phone, USB and computer were played, perusal of whichtranspired that the accused had taken hundreds of porn snaps and a number of videos whereaccused had been sexually abusing the minors by unnatural offence, fingering in virginal partand other such obnoxious acts---Prosecution in order to establish the porn snaps and videosrecorded in the above articles sent the same for analysis and accordingly a witness producedthe Digital Forensic Examination Report---Said report further strengthened the case ofprosecution that the pornography was genuine, as the same was forensically examined, noframe insertion, editing, forgery, deletion was identified---Not only the memory cardcontained porn snaps and videos of minor girls but the computer, USB and mobile phone ofthe accused also contained such abusive porn snaps and videos of minor girls---Recordshowed that though number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but theprosecution had failed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by theprosecution, though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had kept mum tillthe arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted,in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, incircumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(ii), 147, 148 & 149---Attempt tocommit qatl-i-amd, badi'ah, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object---Cancellation of bail, application for---Accused did not intend to commit qatl-i-amd---Completion of investigation---Scope---Allegation against accused persons was that theyforcibly tried to take their uncle with them and started firing---Complainant, his brother andother people intervened and main accused opened fire with pistol and caused bullet injurieson the right foot ankle of the complainant while the other accused persons beaten him withfists and kicks---Accused though had been charged directly in the FIR but he had only beencharged for firing one shot at the victim and specific role had been attributed to the mainaccused---Accused had not repeated the fire when the victim was completely at his mercy---Prima facie there appeared to be no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of thevictim---Injuries were not caused on the vital parts of the body---Question of applicability ofS. 324, P.P.C. or that of S. 337-F(ii), P.P.C. had to be determined after examination ofcomplainant and prosecution witnesses---Investigation had been completed---No recovery,whatsoever had been effected and challan of the case had already been submitted before theTrial Court---Incarceration of accused would serve no useful purpose especially when therewas no allegation of mis-use of concession of bail granted to the accused persons---Discretion exercised by the trial court in granting post arrest bail to the accused persons wasnot arbitrary or against the settled principles of law, hence, did not require interference byHigh Court---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Principles---Bail can only be cancelled if bail grantingorder appears to be perverse and gross illegality has been committed---Principles governingthe grant of bail and the cancellation of bail substantially stand on different footings---Courtshave always been slow to cancel bail, already granted as the liberty of a person cannot becurtailed on flimsy grounds---Interference with an order of bail is required to be made whenthe same lacks reasons or is perfunctory in nature---Once bail has been granted, theprosecution was to make out a strong case for cancellation of bail not by making allegation alone but by giving substantive proof of such allegation---Order for cancellation of bail is aharsh order because it interferes with the liberty of an individual, hence it must not beresorted to lightly and power to take back in custody is to be exercised with due care andcircumspection.2009 SCMR 786; 2004 SCMR 1160; 2005 SCMR 1539; 1994 SCMR 1064 and 2004SCMR 231 ref.