AMANAT ALI vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal revision petition and upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had abducted and raped the victim, who was under sixteen years of age. While the appellate court acquitted the petitioner of the rape charge, it maintained his conviction for abduction based on a finding of fact regarding the victim's age, supported by a birth entry certificate rather than medical opinion. The core legal question concerned the proper appreciation of evidence regarding the victim's age as between the birth certificate and medical testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal infirmity in preferring the birth certificate over the medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a birth entry constitutes reliable evidence of age.
- Whether a birth certificate can be preferred over medical opinion for determining the age of a victim in a criminal case?
- Does the conviction under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustain when the victim is proved to be under sixteen years of age?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding age appreciation based on documentary evidence?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22-9-1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a criminal revision, calling in question conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 363, P.P.C. Was dismissed on examination of the merits.
2. The prosecution case was that Mst. Bashiran P.W., the victim of offence, who was less than sixteen years of age, was abducted and raped by the petitioner, whose plea was that she was his lawfully wedded wife, because she being more than sixteen years of age had willingly with her consent duly contracted marriage with him. The learned Appellate Court, in its judgment impugned before the High Court had acquitted the petitioner in so far as the charge of rape is concerned, but maintained his conviction under section 363, P.P.C. Earlier, the learned trial Judge had convicted the petitioner on a finding of fact that the abductee was less than sixteen years of age at the time of commission of offence. Reliance in this behalf was placed on copy of the birth entry produced from the prosecution side.
3. Learned counsel has contended that reliance should have been placed on the opinion of the Doctor regarding question of the age in preference to the birth certificate.
4. The learned Single Judge in the High Court after careful consideration of the material evidence on the point rejected the medical evidence on question of age as also the oral evidence led from the petitioner's side and has preferred the birth certificate without violating any law or principle of appreciation of evidence. We asked the learned counsel to show any infirmity legal or otherwise regarding the birth certificate, but he failed to do so. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.