SHC maintains life imprisonment of convict in sexual assault case

The Sindh High Court on Monday dismissed the appeal of a man against his conviction in a juvenile sexual assault case.

The appellant, Umar Farooq, was sentenced to life imprisonment sentence for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Baldia Town. According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that his nieces were residing with his sister’s house for about three years and one of the juvenile girls was sexually assaulted by his brother-in-law.

A counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to produce direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence as there was unexplained delay of 68 days in the registration of the FIR casting serious doubts on the veracity of the complaint.

The counsel submitted that the medical and DNA evidence was inconclusive and failed to corroborate the charge while the victim's medical report showed no evidence of physical trauma or injury consistent with repeated rape.

He said that no eyewitness supported the prosecution’s narrative, and there were improvements and contradictions in the victim’s statements under the sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

An additional prosecutor general and the complainant’s counsel submitted that the appellant was specifically nominated in the FIR as well as mentioned in the statements of the victim recorded under the sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.

They said the victim consistently implicated the appellant during her examination before the trial court and expressly denied the suggestion of no sexual assault during cross-examination. They maintained that the victim’s version was credible, coherent and worthy of reliance, further corroborated by the medico-legal officer’s opinion indicating that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse.

A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that the victim’s use of the colloquial term badtamizi (misconduct) — in her Section 164 statement, rather than legally precise terminology such as rape or assault, was neither exculpatory nor indicative of fabrication.

The SHC observed that the victim’s explicit elaboration of the sexual assault during her courtroom testimony dispelled any ambiguity, rendering the appellant’s semantic critique a pedantic distraction.

The high court observed that the victim’s delayed disclosure, predicated on the appellant’s continuous threats of lethal retaliation against her sibling, constituted a compelling and legally cognisable justification under the doctrine of coercive control, a paradigm recognised in modern jurisprudence to account for the psychological dynamics of abuse.

The SHC observed that the trial court’s verdict was grounded in a holistic appraisal of testimonial, medical and circumstantial evidence, and adhered to the golden thread of justice enshrined in the Article 10-A of the Constitution (right to a fair trial) and Article 35 (protection of children).

The bench observed that the imposition of rigorous life imprisonment under the Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code, coupled with a fine and the benefit of the Section 382-B of the CrPC (sentence adjustment for pre-trial detention) reflected a calibrated balance between retribution, deterrence and societal condemnation of custodial sexual violence.

The SHC observed that the trial court had meticulously appreciated the evidence on record, properly applied the settled principles of law, and reached a just and well-reasoned conclusion. The SHC observed that the appellant’s failed to point out any material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference.

The high court observed that cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The SHC dismissed the appeal and maintained the appellant’s conviction.