2026 P Cr. L J 176
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Muhammad Najam -ud-Din Mengal, JJ
SAIF -UR-REHMAN ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. (L) 03 of 2024, decided on 28th August, 2025.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 377 ---Unnatural offence ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---
Contradictory statements of witnesses ---Accused was charged for committing sodomy
with the minor son of complainant ---Record reflected that the prosecution in order to
substantiate the charge had produced the evidence of nine witnesses ---Minute security of
all the said witnesses transpired that the crime was not directly witnessed by them rather
all the witnesses were present either in their houses or at the work place, hence the statements of said witnesses were hearsay evidence, which otherwise was not helpful to the case of prosecution ---Victim though described the whole story by stating that on 25th
October 2023 he was sitting in front of his house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m.
accused came there and asked him to watch his house, as he intended to attend a funeral ceremony, then took him to his house, where the accused committed unnatural offence with him ---While contrary to the same, the complainant deposed in his Court statement
that on the day of incident at about 08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as such, received a telephone call, whereby he was informed about the occurrence--- During the
course of cross -examination, the victim deposed that his father was a rickshaw driver on
those days, whereas the complainant stated that he was working in his cultivated land on the day of incident ---Victim stated that on the said date another person namely “A” came
to his house along with his father, while said witness “A” negated narration of victim in his Court statement, whereby he deposed that he was present in his house, on listening of hue and cry, he promptly reached to the house of complainant, where on his query, the victim disclosed to him that accused committed sodomy with him and he was bleeding and his shalwar was also blood stained ---Thus, such contradictory statement of a star
witness created serious dents in the case of prosecution ---Appeal against conviction was
allowed, in circumstances.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 377 ---Unnatural offence ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Medical
evidence not supporting the ocular account ---Accused was charged for committing
sodomy with the minor son of complainant ---Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital,
conducted the examination of victim and observed that blood was oozing from the external anal region and both buttocks were wet with blood, though he also took samples of anal swab, however, the statement of said witness was silent with regard to the specific performance of intercourse ---Besides, said witness deposed in his Court statement that
asurgeon was called for expert opinion, but the perusal of record revealed that prosecution had failed to produce the said surgeon ---Even otherwise, the opinion of the
referred Medical Officer was also not available on record ---However, after examination
of anal swabs, the Forensic Science Agency issued report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpired that the anal swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen, which even otherwise negated the ocular testimony ---Appeal against conviction
was allowed, in circumstances.
Azizullah v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 1623 rel.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 377---Unnatural offence ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Delay of six
hours in lodging the FIR ---Consequential ---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with
the minor son of complainant ---Occurrence took place on 25th October 2022 at about 08.45 a.m.,
whereas the distance between the Police Station and the house of complainant was about 02
kilometers, hence it was expected that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any
delay, but perusal of FIR revealed that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025 at about 02:15
p.m. i.e. after delay of about six hours and the prosecution had failed to give any plausible
explanation with regard to inordinate delay in prompt lodging of FIR ---Main purpose of lodging
FIR was to set criminal law in motion and to bring on record first -hand information about the
occurrence of a crime--- Besides, it provided a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the
right direction excluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story ---In view of the
circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR could not be taken lightly and it casted serious doubts in the case of the prosecution---Delay in lodging the FIR could only be condoned, when such delay had been adequately explained but in the instant case, there was no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging FIR ---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Abdul Wali and 2 others v. The State 2020 YLR 256 and Muhammad Hassan and another
v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 rel.
(d) Criminal trial ---
----Benefit of doubt ---Principle ---Accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely
because there is only one circumstance, which created doubts in the prosecution story.
Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 rel.
Aftab Ahmed Lone for Appellant.
Younas Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State.
Ayub Khan Sherani for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 31st July, 2025.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UD-DIN MENGAL, J .---This judgment disposes of Criminal
Appeal No.(L)03 of 2024 filed by the appellant Saif ur Rehman Son of Abdul Razzaq, against
the judgment dated 31st August 2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Loralai (“the trial Court Court”), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 P.P.C and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.500,000/ -, and in default thereof to further suffer Six (06)
months S.I., he was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ - as compensation to the
victim boy Shahid Khan under Section 544- A Cr.P.C. for mental anguish and psychological
damage cost to him which shall be recovered as an arear of land revenue.
2. Essential facts of the case are that on 25th October 2022 at about 02:15 p.m., the
complainant Wazeer Khan son of Tajuddin, lodged FIR No.216 of 2022 at Police Station Saddar Loralai, district Loralai, under Section 376 P.P.C, with the averments that he was busy in his cultivated land, in the meanwhile, at about 05:45 a.m. was informed through telephonic conversation that his 9 years old son Shahid Khan, returned home in tears and reported that their neighbor Saif ur Rehman son of Abdul Razzaq had deceitfully taken him to his house, undressed him against his will and committed sodomy with him.
3. After registration of FIR, the appellant was arrested, investigated and on completion
thereof, he was challaned in the trial Court, which initially indicted the charge under Section 376 P.P.C, but subsequently, the charge was altered to Section 377 P.P.C and after denial by the appellant, the prosecution produced Nine witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. However, he recorded his statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and also intended to produce one Haji Saddar Muhammad son of Abdul Hakeem in his defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31st August 2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove in para -1.
Whereafter instant appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution
suffers from material contradictions and dishonest improvements; that the impugned judgement
suffers from misreading, non- reading and mis -appreciation of evidence available on record; that
the prosecution version is lacking independent corroboration as only interested witnesses were produced; that the DNA and serology analysis report issued by the Punjab Forensic Science
Agency Ex.P/9- D shows that semen does not match with the appellant; that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the
learned trial Court while awarding conviction and sentence to the appellant has badly erred in appreciating the evidence available on record.
5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General and learned counsel for complainant strongly
opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for appellant, while supporting the impugned judgment contended that the judgment of Court below is based on cogent and concrete evidence and the appellant has failed to rebut the allegations of sodomy; that the prosecution version was duly supported by the witnesses at the trial and the conviction awarded to the appellants is based upon proper appreciation of evidence by the Court below, finally they urged for maintaining the convict of the appellant and dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record minutely,
which reflects that the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge has produced the evidence of Nine (09) witnesses, but they are not consistent confidence inspiring and even all the witnesses have narrated different stories with regard to the incident. The complainant of the case Wazir Khan appeared as PW- 1, who though brought the criminal
law into motion, but however, the fact remains that he himself did not witness the crime rather his statement is based upon hearsay evidence whatever disclosed to him by his
minor son. During the course of cross -examination in reply of question No.34 he deposed
that after submission of application with police, the accused (appellant) was arrested in his presence. PW- 3 in response to cross No.39 deposed that on the day of occurrence in the
evening time the police came to the house of accused (appellant) and taken into possession the clothes of accused in presence of complainant. The complainant also admitted that he is not eye -witness of the occurrence. This witness also disclosed that when the accused
was arrested, the police personnel did not commit any documentary proceedings in his presence. While contrary to the above depositions, PW -7 (Hameedullah Constable) in his
cross -No.14 replied that at time of arrest of accused neither the complainant nor any other
private individual was accompanying them. PW -7 further negated the reply of complainant
in his question No.21 of cross -examination that when they taken into possession the
Shalwar of accused, in lieu thereof they gave a shawl to the accused to hide his body. Whereas, the I.O. in his examination in chief deposed that the accused was arrested on the pointation of spy, when he was sitting at the corner of Zangiwal bridge and after making arrangements of veil, while taking into possession the Shalwar of accused. Besides, the I.O./PW -9 in reply of cross -examination Nos.26 and 27 admitted that at the time of arrest
of accused, he taken into possession his shalwar and in lieu thereof another shalwar was given to him, which was brought by the Hameedullah Constable (PW -7) from an adjacent
house. PW -3 denied the suggestion that there is a dispute over a house between him and
the accused family and with mala fide intentions implicated the accused in the instant crime.
7. PW-5 Abdul Rahim, is the circumstantial witness, who narrated altogether different story
in examination in chief. According to this witness on the day of occurrence, when he listened hue and cry from the house of complainant, as such, he rushed there and found Asghar (PW -6)
outside the house, who was holding the blood stained Shalwar of victim Shahid Khan and on query, he disclosed to the PW -5 about the incident, subsequently, Wazir Khan and Asghar Khan
proceeded towards bazar on their motorcycles. In reply of question No.14 he deposed that thereafter he did not meet them (complainant and PW -6), while contrary to the same, PW -3 in
response to cross No.43 stated that he again met Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Asghar at night in the dinner time. PW -5 further deposed in reply of question No.9 that time Wazir Khan was not
present in his house rather he was called, such deposition does not appeal to a prudent mind that according to PW -5, when he listened hue and cry, as such, he reached to the house of
complainant, then how he came to know that the complainant was informed and called.
8. PW-6 Muhammad Asghar in his Court statement deposed that on the day of
occurrence, when he listened hue and cry from the house of complainant, as such, he
reached there and on query, the victim Shahid Khan disclosed to him that Saif ur Rehman
committed unnatural offence with him and now he is in trouble, while the victim was bleeding and his shalwar was blood stained. Meaning thereby he is also not eye -witness of
the occurrence. He further said that in the meantime, the door/gate was knocked, when he went outside found PW -5 Abdul Rahim, whereas PW -5 stated in his Court statement that
when he reached at the house of complainant, PW -6 was holding the blood stained Shalwar
of victim. PW -6 further deposed in his court statement that he was accompanying the
complainant, when they proceeded towards police station and hospital, but in rebuttal complainant during the course of cross -examination stated that he proceeded towards
police station and hospital alone. This witness denied the suggestion that being a relative of complainant he got recorded wrong statement in favour of complainant.
9. The minute scrutiny of all the above witnesses transpire that the crime was not
directly witnessed by them rather all the witnesses were present either in their houses or at
the work place, hence we have hesitation to hold that the statements of said witnesses are hearsay evidence, which otherwise is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
10. Now adverting to the star witness of prosecution is PW -8 Shahid Khan (victim).
This witness though described the whole story by stating that on 25th October 2023 he was sitting in front of his house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m. Saif ur Rehman (accused) came there and asked him to watch his house, as he is intended to attend the funeral ceremony of Saadullah’s mother, then took him to his house, where the accused committed unnatural offence with him, while contrary to the same, the complainant deposed in his Court statement that on the day of incident at about 08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as such, received a telephone call, whereby he was informed about the
occurrence. During the course of cross -examination in reply of cross No.10, the victim
deposed that his father was a rikshaw driver on these days, whereas the complainant stated that he was working in his cultivated land on the day of incident. He in response to question No.11 stated that on the said date one another person namely Asghar came to his house along with his father, while PW -6 Muhammad Ashgar negated the narration of
victim in his Court statement, whereby he deposed that he was present in his house on listening of hue and cry, he promptly reached to the house of complainant, where on his query, the victim disclosed to him that accused Saif ur Rehman committed sodomy with him and he was bleeding and his shalwar was also blood stained. PW -9 Ibrar Hussain, SI is
the Investigating Officer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. Thus, such contradictory statement of a star witness created serious dents in the case of prosecution.
11. So far as medical evidence is concerned, suffice to observe here that PW -1 Dr.
Amjad Pervez, Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Loralai conducted the examination of victim (PW -8) and observed that blood was oozing from the external anal region and
both buttocks were wet with blood, though he also took samples of anal swab, but however, the statement of PW -1 is silent with regard to the specific performance of intercourse.
Besides, he deposed in his Court statement that Doctor Bahadur, Surgeon was called for expert opinion, but the perusal of record reveals that prosecution has failed to produce the said Dr. Bahadur. Even otherwise, the opinion of the referred doctor is also not available on record. However, after examination of Anal swab by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, issued report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpires that the anal swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen, which even otherwise, negates the ocular testimony. Reliance in this regard is placed on the reported judgment of this Court in case titled as “Azizullah v. The State, (2017 P Cr.LJ 1623), for convenience the relevant
portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:
“11. The afore referred provision provides that the offences will be completed when
the carnal intercourse is taken place while the law on the subject provides that for constituting an offence in afore referred section and to establish the carnal intercourse, the penetration is a condition precedent, therefore, explanation provided in section 377, P.P.C. states that "penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section". But, since the victim is silent about penetration, while the opinion rendered by the medical witness is not conclusive in nature. The medical jurisprudence provides a complete procedure for examining the victim of sodomy. The medical opinion rendered by medical witness is not in line with the procedure contemplated
in the medical jurisprudence, therefore, it is instructed to produce the relevant procedure
for medical examination of the victim of sodomy as provided in the "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" authored by 'Mr. N.J. Modi' in Chapter XVI, page 334 and 335 with caption of sexual offences, which elaborates the examination of passive agent in the following manner: - As in rape, consent must be obtained before commencing a medical
examination. The following signs may be discovered if the body (passive agent) is not
accustomed to sodomy: - 1. Abrasions on the skin near the anus with pain in walking and on
defaecation, as well as during examination. These injuries are extensive and well -defined
in cases where there is great disproportion in size between the anal orifice of the victim and
the virile member of the accused. Hence lesions will be most marked in children, while they may be almost absent in adults, when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. These injuries, if slight, heal very rapidly in two or three days in most of the cases brought before Modi, he had seen superficial abrasions, varying from 1/6" to 1" x 1/6" to 1/4", external to the sphincter ani. In some cases there may be bruising of the parts round about the anus, and the abrasions may extend into the anus beyond its sphincter.
2. Owing to the strong contraction of the sphincter ani, the penis rarely penetrates
beyond an inch, and consequently the laceration produced on the mucous membrane within
the anus with more or less effusion of blood is usually triangular in nature, having its base
at the anus and the sides extending horizontally in wards into the rectum, Modi had found
lacerations internal to the sphincter ani in several cases, but a typical triangular wound only
in a few cases. These signs may not be perceptible in cases where the active agent has
introduced his penis slowly and carefully without using force into the anus of the passive agent who is a consenting party.
3. Blood may be found in or at the anus, on the perineum or thighs, and also on the
clothes.
4. Semen may be found in or at the anus, on the perineum or on the garments of the boy
too young to have seminal emissions.
5. Signs of a struggle, such as bruises, scratches, etc, on his person, if he is not a
consenting party.
6. Prolapse of the anus.
7. Gonorrheal discharge, or the presence of a syphilitic chancre.
8. The presence of fecal matter around the anus is a corroborative sign.
12. Alfred Swaine Taylor, (1806- 1880) a renowned scholar in the field of Medical
Jurisprudence discusses "Essentials in the medical examination of the passive partner" and
also laid down certain instruction for medical witness, he states that it is essential for medical examination that a medical witness/medico -legal officer must take a general
medical history of the victim and in case of very young or minor child, the doctor should take medical history from parents or guardian. Thus, this may be taken eit her at the
commencement of the examination or after the physical examination has been completed. Special attention must be given to questions relating to the victim bowel habits, including previous constipation, the regular use of laxative, enemata suppositories. In the most general terms, the younger the passive partner the most likely are the chances of serious injury to the anal verge, therefore, acute abrasions may frequently be seen and these are very superficial and may be present at any part of the c ircumference of the anal verge. In
certain cases haematomata are very frequently seen and these may take the form of an 'all over' swelling over the anal verge. Tearing of the sphincter muscle is rare in the case of adult and older children and can take place in the case of young children, and in cases where this has taken place there will be considerable laxity of the anal orifice and some time with frank gapping. The anal fissure has also been observed in certain cases, but it cannot be deducted without proctoscopy of the anal canal, thus in case of young child who has been subjected to sodomy the presence of localised injury to the skin of the anal margin is of greatest significance, therefore, the presence of fresh, moist, pink coloured anal fissure may support the allegation of penile penetration. It is worthwhile to mention here that in case of child, victim of sodomy, chances of severe injury are always possible
and abrasion on the skin near the anus with pain in walking and on defaecation as well as
during 'examination shall necessarily be observed. (Chapter -5, "Medico- legal examination
of the living" Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Thirteenth Edition 1984 Edited by A. Keith Mant)." In the instant case the medico legal report states about the tenderness of anal region which under the medical jurisprudence can be caused
due to constipation or in case of irregular bowel habits. The medical doctor has also failed
to use the proctoscopy instrument in order to obtain the anal swab and did not notice any
sort of abrasion or injury on the anal region of the alleged victim. While the statement of victim/PW -2 is silent about penetration, thus without obtaining the anal swab of the victim
and in absence of positive report with regard to semen stained clothes of the victim and the accused and without obtaining blood group of accused in order to match the semen stains found on the victim clothes, on mere tenderness of the anal region, no conclusive opinion can be rendered whether a sodomy has been committed or not.”
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
12. Another important aspect of the case is that the occurrence took place on 25th
October 2022 at about 08.45 a.m., whereas the distance in between the Police Station and
the house of complainant is about 02 kilometers, hence it is expected that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any delay, but perusal of FIR reveals that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025 at about 02:15 p.m. i.e. after delay of about six hours and the prosecution has failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to inordinate delay in prompt lodging of FIR. The main purpose of lodging FIR is to set criminal law in motion and to bring on record firsthand information about the occurrence of a crime. Besides, it provides a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right direction
excluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story. In view of the circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR cannot be taken lightly and it casts serious doubts in the case of the prosecution. It is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR can only be condoned, when such delay has been adequately explained but in the instant case, there is no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging FIR. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled as “Abdul Wali and 2 others v. The State, (2020 YLR 256), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:
“4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APG and have gone
through the record of the case with their able assistance. The prosecution case rest upon three ocular accounts, i.e. recovery of alleged snatched motorcycle, identification parade and disclosure memo, allegedly disclosed by the convict/appellant Abdul Wali. Perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence took place on 09.08.2017 at 5:00 p.m., while the FIR was lodged on 10.08.2017 at 6:30 pm after delay of twenty four hours, despite the fact that the distance of the police station was about 13 to 14 kilometers from the place of occurrence. No reasons whatsoever have been mentioned in the FIR by the complainant for such delay in reporting the crime to the police. Even before the learned trial court no plausible reason has been assigned by the complainant, which shows that no sincere effort was made by the complainant's side to report the matter to the police with due promptitude, as such there is every possibility that the intervening period was consumed in concocting a story, which is giving rise to many doubts regarding the correctness of the story narrated in the crime report.
13. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case
titled “Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State, (2024 SCMR 1427)” wherein it has been
held as under:
“6. The incident in this case (as per the contents of the FIR and the Private
Complaint) took place on 17.04.2008 at 4:00 p.m. However, the matter was reported to the police by the complainant, Muhammad Ibrahim (PW -1), through a written complaint (Ex.
PA) on 18.04.2008. Consequently, the formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered at 8:10 a.m., approximately more than sixteen hours after the incident, despite the police station being only 16 km away from the scene of the occurrence. Nowhere in the entire evidence, the
prosecution has explained the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police with such a delay. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty on the part of the complainant and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2023 SCMR 566) wherein a
delay of only five hours and ten minutes in reporting the matter to and lodging the FIR by
the police was considered indicative of dishonesty on the part of the complainant.”
14. The reappraisal of statements of prosecution witnesses would divulge the fact that
not only the same are contradictory with each other, but in order to cover up the lacunas certain dishonest improvements have also been made. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charge against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the same is suffering from misreading, non- reading and mis -appreciation of material available on record. The above
defects in the prosecution case were not considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. It is well settled principle of law that a wrongful conviction results into injustice, the first tragedy is to the innocent person; the second is to the victim of the offence and to society, because the real offender is not brought to justice, wrong conviction undermine the credibility of the legal system, whenever witnesses are mistaken, it is rarely because they lie or misrepresent the facts. Needless to emphasize that accused were entitled to be extended benefits of doubt as a matter of right, but the same was withheld. Even an accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance, which creates doubts in the prosecution story,
whereas in the case in hand there are series of doubts apparent from the statements of
witnesses. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of “Khial Muhammad v. The
State” (2024 SCMR 1490), whereby the Hon’ble apex Court has held as under:
“It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of benefit
of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if
there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. In the case reported as
Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64) this Court has held that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the apprehension of guilt of an accused, then he/she shall be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession, but as of right. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases reported as Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)
and Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048). The same view was reiterated in the
case reported as Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019 SCMR 129) wherein it was held that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or presence of eye -witnesses being doubtful, the benefit of such
loophole/lacuna in the prosecution's case automatically goes in favour of an accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
15. The discrepancies so pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be taken
lightly. It is a well settled principle of law that an accused is entitled to get the benefit of a
slightest doubt, whereas in the instant case there are certain legal defects and discrepancies apparent on the face of record, which rendered the entire case as doubtful, but the trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment has failed to extend the benefits of such doubts in favour of the appellant.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment
dated 31st August 2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Loralai is set aside and while extending the benefit of doubts, the appellant Saif ur Rehman Son of Abdul Razzaq, is acquitted of the charge. The appellant being in custody, is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
JK/122/Bal. Appeal allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.