2022 SCMR 50
The petitioner was proceeded against in pursuance of the aforesaid crime report wherein serious allegations are leveled against him. The most alarming allegation against the petitioner is that he tried to sexually harass a young girl aged about 7 years, which is a very disgusting act.
It is an apathy to mention that such like cases are at the verge of rise in the society, which has to be curbed with iron hands. Law is very clear about this that the statement of the victim in isolation itself is sufficient for conviction if the same reflects that it is independent, unbiased and straight forward to establish the accusation against the accused.
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.”
So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the learned High Court while relying on the judgment of this Court reported as Zahid Vs. State (2020 SCMR 590) has rightly held that in such like cases victims or their families are reluctant to come forward to promptly report the crime because of the trauma that has been suffered and they may have a perception of shame or dishonour in having the victim invasively examined by a doctor, therefore, the delay in reporting a sexual assault to the police is not very material. So far as the argument of learned counsel that according to medical evidence no sign of injury was found on the person of the victim is concerned, the prosecution case is that the petitioner had sexually abused the minor girl by firstly undressing her and then by touching his genital organ on the chest of the victim and he also tried to put his organ in the mouth of the victim. In such eventuality when the victim was only of seven years old and did not know as to what is happening with her and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was known to her previously, the victim may not have resisted in front of the petitioner, therefore, mere nonavailability of any sign of injury is of no help to the petitioner.
No one would defame her minor daughter only on some minor quarrel because the honor of female daughter is always more precious for a mother to take revenge on a trifle issue, therefore, the same appears to be a concocted story just to save the skin.
0 Comments