Zia-Ud-Din S/O Noor Muhammad vs The State Through Prosecutor General

Balochistan High Court · 2024 · Before Hon'ble Justice Sardar Ahmed Haleemi

Court, Quetta (hereinafter the “trial Court”), whereby the appellant was convicted under section 376, P .P .C.to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 100,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P .C.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the complaint of Bibi Saima, an FIR No.133 of 2021 was registered under section 376, P .P .C.at Police Station Satellite Town, Quetta to the effect that she solemnized marriage with Zia-ud-Din 12 years ago; out of wedlock, four daughters and two sons were born; due to family dispute, her husband Zia-ud-Din divorced her ten months ago, and she started residing at Muslim Bagh with her relatives. On 12.09.2021, she came for her treatment to the Civil Hospital, Quetta and thereafter visited her children at her father-in-law home situated at Ghous Abad, where her elder Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2022 2 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. daughter namely Madina aged 12 years told her that her father has been committing rape with her since last one month, hence the FIR.

3. In pursuance of the above FIR, the appellant was arrested and investigated, and on completion thereof, the challan of the case was submitted before the trial Court.

4. That trial Court after fulfilling legal formalities, framed the charge against the appellant, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant produced six (06) witnesses, whereafter the appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P .C. The appellant neither examined himself on oath as envisaged under Section 340(2) Cr.P .C,nor produced any witness in his defence.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned judgment, hence this Criminal Appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without considering the provisions of Sections 376 and 379 Cr.P .C; that glaring contradictions are apparent in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant in the instant case in order to take custody of the children; that the Investigating Officer has failed to record the statement of grandfather and uncles of the victim, which creates dent in the prosecution version; no private witness has been associated in the instant case; FIR has been Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2022 3 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. registered with unexplained delay without any justification and the alleged MLC has been prepared after months of delay; there exists several illegalities and irregularities in the impugned judgment that warrants interference of this Court in appellate jurisdiction and lastly prayed for acquittal of appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the cases Atta ul Mustafa Vs. The State and another (2023 SCMR 1698), Imran Vs. The State through Prosecutor General (2024 P .Cr.L.J 1048 Balochistan), Ghulam Mustafa Vs. The State (2023 P .Cr.L.JNote 105 Balochistan) and Amjad Ali Vs. The State and another (2024 MLD 1563 Lahore)

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…