Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GUL MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Salahuddin Ahmad, Sheikh Anwarul Haq Title: GUL MUHAMMAD vs The STATE Case No.:Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1974 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 38-
P of 1975 Date of Judgment:1975-10-08 Reported As: 1976 SCMR 367 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER 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. 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. 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. 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. Muhammad Nasir and there appeared no reason why he should have falsely implicated the petitioner in such a heinous offence. 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
---
## Page 2
facts and circumstances of the case however, we do not think that any inference adverse to the prosecution should be made in this case. Mr. Sardar Khan, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has failed to submit before us any illegality in the conviction and sentence. The petition is accordingly dismissed.