AMANULLAH Versus STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for kidnapping and rape. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Sections 363 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sentences of three and seven years respectively. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentence for the rape charge to three years, citing the prolonged litigation period, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable due to medical evidence suggesting prior sexual experience and that the delay in proceedings warranted further sentence reduction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was corroborated by forensic chemical analysis and that the victim's minority rendered her consent immaterial. The Court affirmed that the appreciation of evidence by lower courts was sound and that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding trial delay. The judgment reinforces that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in cases of kidnapping and rape, and that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on reliable evidence.
- Is the consent of a minor victim legally relevant in a prosecution for kidnapping and rape?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when corroborated by forensic evidence?
- Does the mere passage of time during litigation automatically entitle a convict to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J. --The petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, under sections 363 and 376, P.P.C. in respect of an occurrence which took place on the night of 18th February, 1973. He was awarded a sentence of R.I. for 3 years under the first count and a sentence of R.I. for 7 years under the second count besides fine and imprisonment in default of the payment thereof. In an appeal filed by the petitioner a learned Judge of the Sind High Court maintained the convictions of the petitioner, but on the ground that he had been facing litigation in connection with the charges for a period of 11 years, the learned Judge reduced his sentence under section 376 P.P.C. from 7 years to 3 years and also gave him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., vide judgment, dated 28th June, 1987.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court the main contention raised by the learned counsel was that as the medical evidence disclosed that the victim Mst. Alam Ara was used to sexual intercourse, the conviction of the petitioner under section 376, P.P.C. was not sustainable on the sole testimony) of the prosecutrix. After perusing the judgment of the High Court we find no force in this contention as the testimony of Mst. Alam Ara received support from the chemical analysis report that semen was detected on the shorts worn by the petitioner and the clothes of the girl. In any case this is a question of appreciation of evidence and there is no reason to disregard the view taken by the two Courts below that the testimony of the victim was inherently reliable. Even otherwise the learned counsel was unable to challenge the medical evidence that Mst. Alam Ara was of the age of 14 years on the date of commission of offence and therefore the conviction of the petitioner under section 363 is not open to any question. The consent of the victim, who has been proved to be a minor, has no material bearing on the case, on which the learned counsel stressed much. The, petitioner has already been given sufficient benefit by the High Court in reducing his sentence and giving him benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also contended that in view of the long delay in the disposal of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his sentence being reduced to the one already undergone I by him. But as the petitioner has not placed on record the case diary, we are in no position to appreciate the justification for this argument, because the delay in the trial Court might as well have been due to the petitioner himself.
3. In the circumstances there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H./A-169/S Petition dismissed.