Ahmad Fraz vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ahmad Fraz, who was found guilty by the trial court for the offence of attempting to commit rape under sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary gaps. The High Court observed that there was an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, which proved fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the victim failed to undergo a medical examination, and the complainant explicitly stated he had no objection to the appellant's acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not as a concession.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant consents to the acquittal of the accused?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. Appellant (Ahmad Fraz) has been tried by learned trial Court in case FIR No.129 dated 14.03.2011 offence under sections 376/ 511, P.P.C. Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang, and was convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 19.05.2012 as under:-- Ahmad Fraz (appellant)
Under Sections 376/511 P.P.C. Sentenced to 5-years RI. for attempt to commit Zina with Razia Bibi with fine Rs.50,000/- in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Unnecessary facts apart, Ghulam Jaffar (complainant/PW-2) on 14.03.2011 got registered FIR stating therein that on 12.03.2011 at about 10:00 a.m., his paternal niece Razia, Bibi (PW-1) was cutting fodder in the field for cattle, appellant (Ahmad Fraz) was also watering his nearby field who finding her niece alone attempted to commit rape with her. Razia Bibi (PW-1) while appearing before learned trial Court also reiterated the same story. There is delay of two days in, lodging of the FIR. In these circumstances, two days unexplained delayed statements of these two witnesses are not free from doubt rather fatal to the prosecution. 2017 SCMR 486 "Muhammad Asif v. The State" Razia Bibi . (victim/PW-1) also did not appear for her medical examination.
4. Ghulam Jaffar (complainant/ PW-2) present in Court also submits that he has no objection on acceptance of this appeal and acquittal of the appellant.
5. In view of the above discussed circumstances, I entertain serious doubt in my mind regarding participation of the appellant in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession but as of right.
6. For the foregoing reasons, instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Ahmad Fraz) is accepted, his conviction and sentences awarded by learned trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. Appellant is present on bail his sureties stand discharged.