Rape is a crime that is usually committed in private. The courts, therefore, do not insist upon producing direct evidence: SC

ISLAMABAD   -  The Supreme Court of Pakistan Thursday ruled that the statement of the victim in isolation itself is sufficient for conviction if the same reflected that it was independent, unbiased and straight forward to establish the allegation against the accused.

The top court also rejected the bail plea of an accused involved in rape of a seven-year-old girl. A two-member SC bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar had reserved a verdict on a bail plea filed by Zahid against the Balochistan High Court judgment.

A five-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi stated that the court heard counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence available on record.

“In the instant case, the petitioner was proceeded against in pursuance of the crime report wherein serious allegations were leveled against him. The most alarming allegation against the petitioner was that he tried to sexually harass a seven years young girl, which was a very disgusting act. The petitioner was investigated at length and was found involved as per accusation leveled in the crime report.

During the course of trial, the Trial Court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record convicted the petitioner, which conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court,” it added.

The judgment further read that the Supreme Court during the course of proceedings carefully evaluated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the whole prosecution case qua ocular account hinges upon the testimonies of these two witnesses. 

Amongst these two witnesses Mst Shahida Bibi happens to be the victim of the occurrence.

While making her statement in Court, she has narrated the whole occurrence in a very mature and natural manner touching the contents of the crime report on all aspects without any disconnection.

It stated that “Although the victim was of tender age, however, her statement depicts maturity of the highest level, which is in consonance with the statement of victim’s mother. The victim has directly charged the petitioner for sexually abusing her while detailing the acts committed by him on the day of occurrence. She has further alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of doing this even earlier to the present incident.

Although she was cross-examined at length but her statement remained in line and was testified in the most natural style, which reflects that whatever she has stated before the Court, she has stated the truth. As far as the identity of the petitioner is concerned, there is not an iota of doubt about his identity because he being the neighbor of the victim was conversant with her.

It is apathy to mention that such like cases are at the verge of rise in the society, which has to be curbed with iron hands. Although in the instant case, the statement of the victim is fully corroborated by the statement of the witness but law is very clear about this that the statement of the victim in isolation itself is sufficient for conviction.”

The order stated that apex court in a case had categorically held that “rape is a crime that is usually committed in private and there is hardly any witness to provide direct evidence of having seen the commission of crime by the accused person. The courts, therefore, do not insist upon producing direct evidence to corroborate the testimony of the victim if the same is found to be confidence inspiring in the overall particular facts and circumstances of a case, and considers such a testimony of the victim sufficient for conviction of the accused person.

A rape victim stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, for an injured witness gets the injury on the physical form while the rape victim suffers psychologically and emotionally.”

The victim had specifically named the petitioner in his testimony before the Court and had fully identified him. There was no previous enmity between the parties, which could lead to false implication of the petitioner in the present case.

SC accepts interim bail of money laundering accused

The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the interim bail of money laundering accused Usman Butt against surety bond of Rs 0.5 million.

The court also directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to complete investigation in the case in 10 days. A three-member SC bench comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard the bail plea filed by Usman Butt.

During the course of proceedings, the investigating officer said that accused Usman Butt bought three commercial properties measuring 96 kanals of land and he failed to provide money trail of two properties. He said that the seller showed that he sold property at Rs 0.3 million while actually the accused bought the property for Rs 30 million. Arif, who sold properties, was the frontman of the accused, he added.  Accused Usman’s lawyer said that his client was a big exporter of sports products.

He said that his client paid sales tax of Rs 1.5 billion and asked why would a tax payer of Rs 1.5 billion hide Rs 30 million?

Justice Sardar Tariq Masood asked the FIA to verify from the bank record whether the accused was able to purchase the properties or not. The apex court granted interim bail to accused Usman Butt and adjourned the hearing for ten days.