ABDUL HAMEED BUTT Versus State
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1-M of 2015
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this miscellaneous petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 in case FIR No. 1009/13, dated 10.10.2013 registered at Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi in respect of an offence under section 376(ii), P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi it has been noticed by this Court that serious allegations of committing rape by the present petitioner along with his co-accused namely Malik Tariq Mehmood, uncle (Khaloo of the complainant since Proclaimed Offender) and taking away valuable articles have been leveled against the petitioner and during trial the victim complainant had duly appeared before the learned trial court as PW5 and she has pointed accusing fingers towards the petitioner as the culprit who has committed rape with her and during course of Zina-bil Jabr his identity was revealed to the complainant. It is also significant to point out here that at the time when co-accused of the petitioner namely Malik Tariq Mehmood was committing rape with the complainant present petitioner was busy in making movie of this shameful act and thereafter he too committed rape with the complainant. Without going into the merits of this case I may express here that solitary statement of victim in such like cases is sufficient if same is found to the learned trial court trustworthy, especially when no previous ill-will or bitterness is prevailing between the victim and the culprit. To substantiate the allegations leveled by victim PW5 two lady doctors have also appeared before the learned trial court as PW4 and PW8 who also verified the factum of sexual intercourse with the victim. Similarly, recovery witnesses have also appeared before the learned trial court in support of the ocular account, thus, the authenticity or otherwise of the prosecution witnesses cannot be determined at this premature stage of suspension of sentence rather the same needs re-visitation of evidence which exercise would be carried out at the time to hearing of main appeal. Rest of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner at bar are touching the merits of this case which I am afraid cannot be considered or determined through the instant miscellaneous petition.
3. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to make out case for suspension of his sentence and this miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.
4. Before parting with this order it is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and the same should not prejudice the case of either party at the time of hearing of main appeal.
HBT/A-34/L Petition dismissed.