Islamabad:
The Supreme Court acquitted a man, who spent 12 years in prison for charges of violating his own daughter, leaving aside his life imprisonment sentence due to defective and contradictory evidence.
A three -members bank headed by Judge Hashim Kakar, issued a 10 -page sentence, written by Judge Ali Baqar Najafi. The Court revoked the previous verdicts of the Court of First Instance and those of the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) that had confirmed the sentence.
The Order declared that the evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office was ruled out, since it lacked reliability. “The sentence and condemnation of the appellant were annulled. It is released immediately if it is not necessary in any other case,” said the order.
The case dates back to 2010 when the six -year -old daughter of man accused him of rape.
He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment and fined with RS35,000 by a court of first instance. The LHC confirmed this verdict in 2013.
The decision of the Supreme Court focused on critical inconsistencies in the case of the Prosecutor’s Office. The judge also mentioned that the Court of First Instance did not put the victim’s rationality proof before registering his statement.
According to the law, the testimony of a child is only admissible if the judge is satisfied that the child understands the questions and the duty to tell the truth. “A child is a competent witness if a sufficient expiration standard of understanding passes on the facts that were going to be narrated for her,” the ruling said.
The court determined that the daughter’s statement contained important contradictions and lacked clarity with respect to the date and time of the alleged incident. In addition, medical evidence was considered inconsistent, since the doctor who initially declared the violation denied it during the interrogation.
The ruling also pointed out that the key witnesses to the Prosecutor’s Office, the mother of the plaintiff and the maternal uncle, were not eyewitnesses for the alleged crime. His testimony was classified as rumors and, therefore, inadmissible.
A significant factor that was recorded during the process was an in progress on inheritance and other domestic problems, which suggests a possible alternative reason behind the accusations.
Declaging that the prosecution’s evidence is completely unreliable, the Bank of the Supreme Court ordered that the defendant must be released immediately if he is not desired in any other case.
