SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH ALIAS GULLU Versus STATE
This is an appeal under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 directed against the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the charges of sodomy and sexual assault on a minor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the medical and ocular evidence clearly proved the commission of the offense, and even suggested that a charge of rape was made out on the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on sound medical and ocular evidence in heinous offenses against minors warrant no interference by the appellate court.
- Whether an appeal lies under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 against a conviction passed by a Special Court?
- Does the presence of tear marks, congestion, and tenderness of the anus sufficiently establish an offense under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with well-considered findings of fact by a trial court supported by reliable medical and ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
- Section 12, Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987
- Section 4(3), Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑‑This is an appeal under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 (Ordinance II of 1987).
2. The relevant facts are that the complainant Muhammad Dawood P.W.5 is a milk‑seller having his shop on Circular Road, Hafizabad City. On 1‑3‑1987 when Muhammad Dawood came to his house to have his mid‑day meal he found that his minor daughter Rehana Kausar aged about 41 years, was absent. On enquiry as to her whereabouts from his wife he was informed that she had gone 'to the house of Syed Abdul Ghafoor Shah to play with his daughter. However, sometimes thereafter the cries of Rehana Kausar were heard. The complainant rushed out and saw the appellant Sajid alias Gullu son of Syed Abdul Ghafoor Shah, aforementioned, consoling Rehana Kausar in front of the door of his house. He also noticed that Rehana's trousers were besmeared with blood. On enquiry from her as to what had happened Rehana told her father that Sajid alias Gullu had subjected her to thrusts of penis. At this stage, the appellant made good his escape.
3. The matter was reported to the police and the challan was initially presented in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who sent it to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge but before the trial Court could begin the case was transferred to the Special Court constituted under subsection (3) of section 4 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987. The case was then tried by Mr. Justice Qurban Sadiq Ikram, a serving Judge of the Lahore High Court, who is also Judge, Punjab Special Court No.3, Gujranwala at Lahore. The learned Judge examined 8 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution while the appellant made a statement on oath in his defence and also examined a witness (Abdul Ghafoor Shah, D.W.1) in defence. After hearing the parties the learned Judge found, in a well‑considered judgment wherein the entire evidence was carefully considered, that the prosecution had established its case. The appellant was convicted as under:‑
4. "R.I. for 10 years, fine of Rs.15,000 or in default two years R.I. under section 377, P.P.C. Rs.10,000 out of the fine, if recovered, to be paid to Muhammad Dawood, complainant, as compensation. Benefit of section 382, Cr.P.C. not, allowed."
5. This is an appeal under section 12 of the Ordinance against the above conviction and sentence.
6. We have heard Mr. Asghar Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, at some length and also perused the relevant evidence, especially the statement of the Lady Doctor and that of the little girl, with particular care.
7. We feel that the conviction of the appellant was fully merited and, in fact, the learned Judge in convicting the appellant under section 377, P.P.C. only, on the ground that there were tear marks, congestion and tenderness of anus and a case of carnal intercourse (sodomy) was established has taken a sympathetic view of the situation because to us it appears that on the evidence on record the case of rape too was made out.
8. Be that as it may it is obvious that no ground for interference exists. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. (M.I. /S‑167/S Petition dismissed