GUL MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with an order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in relying upon the ocular testimony of an eyewitness and medical evidence, and whether the non-production of a chemical examiner's report regarding the victim's clothing warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on reliable eyewitness and medical evidence were unexceptionable, and the non-production of the chemical report did not prejudice the prosecution case under the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
- Whether the non-production of a chemical examiner's report regarding the victim's clothing necessarily warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact based on the testimony of an eyewitness and medical evidence can be interfered with when no illegality is shown?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Upon a report lodged by the uncle of the victim boy stated to be 12!13 years old, the petitioner was prosecuted and finally convicted under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 by a Magistrate invested with the powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. On appeal the conviction and sentence were both upheld by the High Court and it was directed that the fine if realised should be paid to the victim under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as compensation.
3. The incident took place on the 2nd of November 1972, at 7-30 p. m. Land it was witnessed by P. W. 2 Muhammad Nasir an employee of the complainant. The first information report was lodged on the 4th of November 1972, at 5-30 p. m. And the cause of the delay for lodging the report as given by P.
4. W. Muhammad Nasir was that the boy as well he had been threatened by the petitioner. The victim was medically examined on the 4th of November 1972, at 8-50 p. m. And the examination disclosed contusion around annal entrance and abrasion at the annal. The evidence of P. W. Muhammad Nasir as well as the medical evidence lent support to the evidence of the victim boy and both the Courts accordingly relied on them. No ill-will or anything of the kind was suggested to P. W.
5. Muhammad Nasir and there appeared no reason why he should have falsely implicated the petitioner in such a heinous offence.
6. It has been contended before us that although the shalwar of the victim was sent by the police for examination, no report was produced by the prosecution. It is true that the prosecution has not produced such a report nor appears to have given any reason for such non-production. Under the facts and circumstances of the case however, we do not think that any inference adverse to the prosecution should be made in this case.
7. Mr. Sardar Khan, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has failed to submit before us any illegality in the conviction and sentence.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.