ABID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing the sentence to four months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question was whether the evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the victim and witnesses regarding the assault and use of criminal force, sufficiently established the ingredients of the offence under Section 354, despite the absence of physical injury. The Supreme Court held that the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which detailed the accused's actions of grabbing the victim, dragging her, and attempting to remove her clothing, clearly satisfied the definitions of assault and criminal force provided in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the delay in lodging the First Information Report was satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed on the additional ground that it was time-barred by 57 days without a filed application for condonation of delay.
- Does the absence of physical injury on a victim preclude a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the grounds of being time-barred when no application for condonation of delay is filed?
- Does the consistent testimony of a victim and eyewitnesses regarding the use of criminal force and assault satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 351, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 350, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-1- 1997 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby the judgment dated 17-10-1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shorekot convicting the petitioner under section 354, P.P.C. Was upheld but the sentence was reduced to four month's R.I. With a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For one month.
2. The conviction of the petitioner was based on the testimony of complainant, Mst. Parveen- victim/P.W.1, Safdar Ali--her husband/P.W.3 and Noor Din - father of the victim/P.W.2. It was noted that the complainant was a mother of three daughters. Neither she, nor her husband or even her father would have liked to fabricate a totally false case to implicate the petitioner as that would have repercussions not only on their family honour but will also leave a bad scar on the future of the small daughters of the complainant. It is also important to note that the petitioner/convict is Khalazad of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that offence under section 354, P.P.C. Is not made out as no injury was found on the person of alleged victim. He took us through the evidence of three prosecution witnesses. The testimony on record fully establishes the ingredients of the offence under section 354, P.P.C. The "assault" has been defined in section 351, P.P.C. "criminal force" has been defined in section 350, P.P.C. and it is idle to urge in the presence of the consistent statements of prosecution witnesses that offence under section 354, P.P.C. Is not made out. Mst. Parveen P.W.1 stated that when she reached near the sugarcane field with the petitioner/accused, he caught her from her hand and made her fall on the ground. The accused then tried to open the string of her Shalwar which she strongly resisted. She also started crying and in the meanwhile the accused dragged her into sugarcane field up to two to three Karams. The accused had been trying to open the string of her Shalwar and was pressing her to allow him to commit Zina with her. On hearing her cries, her husband Safdar Ali P.W.3, her father Noor Din P.W.2 and Yasin P.W., the owner of the sugarcane field were attracted. The use of criminal force and assault is, therefore, apparent.
Learned Courts below were, in the circumstances, justified in recording the conclusion that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Was satisfactorily explained. The conclusions recorded by both the learned Courts below were properly and reasonably drawn. No case for interference is, thus, made out. Even the petition for leave to appeal is barred by limitation - 57 days and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.