KAIM vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld his convictions under sections 325, 365, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sentences directed to run concurrently. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the petitioner's conviction based on direct testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative circumstances, including the recovery of the abducted victim from the petitioner's custody and forensic findings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to present any valid ground for re-examining the evidence, as the courts below properly applied their minds and adhered to established rules of appraisal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentences.
- Will the Supreme Court re-examine evidence in a petition for leave to appeal based solely on grounds going to the mere appreciation of evidence?
- Does the recovery of an abducted person from the custody of the accused along with incriminating forensic evidence support a conviction under sections 325, 365, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner stands convicted under sections 325, 365 and 376, P. P. C.
2. And sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, The High Court having upheld the convictions directed that the sentences should run concurrently.
3. Leave to appeal is asked for on grounds which go to mere appreciation of evidence. As pointed out by the learned Judge in the High Court apart from the direct testimony of Mst. Sardari who was forcibly abducted from the house of her parents and Mst. Nur Khatoon and Nur Mohammad, P. Ws., who were, along with Gulsher, deceased, caused injuries, the petitioner's conviction is supported by more than one circumstance : (i) Mst. Sardari was recovered from his custody in a forest two days after she had been abducted ; (ii) the loin cloth of the petitioner and the shalwar of Mst. Sardari were found stained with semen ; and (iii) Mst. Sardari, aged 17, was, according to the Medical evidence, subjected to sexual intercourse.
4. The petitioner did not deny the recovery of Mst. Sardari as alleged by the prosecution as well as the presence of semen on his loin cloth and the shalwar of Mst. Sardari. He, however, pleaded that Mst.
5. Sardari was his lawfully wedded wife. Oral evidence was led in support of the plea which was disbelieved by the Courts below for cogent reasons.
6. The learned counsel has been unable to make out any reason for dais Court to re-examine evidence in the case. The Court below have applied their minds to the entire material brought on the record and made no departure from any established rule in appraising the evidence to warrant interference in our special jurisdiction.
7. The petition is dismissed.