Sexagenarian denied bail in child sexual abuse case

A sessions court has dismissed an application filed by a sexagenarian seeking post-arrest bail in a child sexual abuse case.

Initially, a first information report was registered against him under sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 511 (punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) on a complaint of the victim’s uncle.

However, the investigating officer later incorporated Section 377-B of the PPC in the charge-sheet that he filed in the case.

Under Section 377-A, “fondling, stroking, caressing, exhibitionism, voyeurism or any obscene or sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct either independently or in conjunction with other acts, with or without consent where age of person is less than eighteen years” comes under the definition of sexual abuse. Section 377-B provides for punishment of sexual abuse.

State prosecutor Irfana Qadri and advocate Bahzad Akbar, the counsel for the complainant, argued that the minor victim implicated the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

“On the perusal of record, it appears that porn pictures of the victim child are available in a police file. The victim has fully implicated the accused in her Section 164 CrPC statement,” the judge observed, noting that the victim is only five years old and that the pictures have also been recovered from the accused’s mobile phone.

On the other hand, the defence counsel contended that the complainant was not an eyewitness in the case, nor was there any other independent witness who could corroborate the prosecution’s allegations. He maintained that no torture marks were found on the victim’s body and added that the case required to be further investigated, pleading with the judge to release his client on bail.