SHC dismisses bail plea in child molestation case

The Sindh High Court has dismissed a bail application of a man in a child molestation case. The court observed on Friday that child sexual abuse is usually a recurring pattern for a person who indulges in it and it may be safer for the society at large that the applicant stays in custody until such time as the trial court has had an opportunity to evaluate the evidence and render a judgment.

Abdul Hafiz Usman was arrested for his alleged involvement in child molestation in Steel Town. According to the prosecution, the applicant had attempted to sodomise the minor boy but he was caught red-handed by the victim’s father and others. The complainant alleged that his boy told him that the applicant had disrobed him and then molested him.

The applicant’s counsel submitted that there were discrepancies between statements of witnesses and the exact location where the offence was said to have been committed. He submitted that the alleged incident did not happen and the medical report did not corroborate the ocular version of the prosecution. He said that the complainant levelled a false allegation as he had a dispute with the applicant over property.

The assistant advocate general supported the trial court order and submitted that the bail was rightly dismissed by the trial court as the offence carries a harsher sentence of sexual assault which even if halved pursuant to Section 511 of the PPC would still make the offence fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the CrPC.

A single high court bench, headed by Justice Omar Sial, after hearing the arguments, observed that there was no reason for false implication though the applicant’s counsel argued about the land dispute but he failed to produce even remote details of supposed dispute.

The court observed that the applicant relied upon the testimonies recorded at trial which would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence and it would not be appropriate at this stage to dwell into and analyze the prosecution witness testimonies recorded at trial. The court observe that trial court will be in the best position to evaluate the evidence and announce its findings.

It said that offence under Section 377 of the PPC carries a potential sentence of two to 10 years, whereas the offence under Section 377-A of the PPC carries a potential sentence of 14 to 20 years and a fine of Rs1 million.

The court observed that it is an admitted position that an offence under Section 377 of the PPC was not completed; therefore, punishment would be under Section 511 of the PPC, and at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that an offence under Section 377-A was not complete.

It further stated that punishment that the applicant could possibly face for the offences with which he is charged will fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the CrPC. It said that medical reports on record show that an attempt to sodomise may have been made; however, this is a case where medical evidence may not be as important as the eyewitness account and testimonies.