SHC acquits six men in sexual assault case

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has overturned the conviction of six men in a sexual assault case, observing that the underage complainant was put through trauma by both the police and his father and that the prosecution case had been weakened to the point where reasonable doubt arose.

A two-member bench headed by Justice Omar Sial heard the appeals against a sessions court ruling issued in October last year, under which six men had been sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy within the limits of the Bahadurabad police station in 2024.

According to the prosecution case, the accused had repeatedly abused the boy at different places over a period of around six months. After hearing the parties and reviewing the record, the SHC allowed the appeals and acquitted all the appellants.

The judgement said the prosecution case rested entirely on the statement of the victim. It noted that although the appellants had been convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with unnatural offences, the medical evidence did not support that conclusion.

The bench said the boy had testified that the incidents began five to six months before the FIR was registered. He stated that he regularly went to a friend’s house to play, where one of the accused, described as a security guard, first assaulted him. He further alleged that other accused persons also abused him at different times and places.

Court points to gaps in prosecution case

The SHC identified what it described as major shortcomings in the prosecution case. It questioned how the victim identified the accused when he had admitted that he did not know them before the alleged incidents. While the father said the child had disclosed their names, the record did not show how, when or where that identification took place.

The court also noted that neither the friend nor the friend’s family was examined to verify whether one of the accused had worked as a guard at their residence. It further said that Arif Lakhani, at whose house another alleged incident was said to have taken place, was not produced as a witness. The bench held that failure to examine these individuals gave rise to an adverse presumption.

It also observed that CCTV cameras were reportedly installed at the relevant locations, but the investigating officer neither inspected them nor obtained any footage.

"We have considered the aspect that perhaps what victim wanted to complain about was sexual abuse and not sodomy. Sexual abuse is envisaged in Section 377-A PPC. However, the victim, in his examination left little doubt that what he complained about fell within a Section 377 PPC offence. The child was treated insensitively during his examination. The court should not have permitted that," the bench noted.

It further stated the prosecution had handled the matter without the care required in a case involving a juvenile. "Certain questions asked of the child should not have been asked. In its bid to prove a case of sodomy, the prosecution was callous. The counsels appearing for the parties at trial also displayed insensitivity during the witness examination procedure. The primary duty to regulate proceedings was the Court’s. The Court should have shown greater sensitivity, as a juvenile was involved. The medical evidence brought on record does not reconcile with what the prosecution alleged," it said.

Bench criticises father and police

The judgement said apparent dishonesty and exaggeration in the statements of the victim’s father, who was also the complainant, and the victim, who the court said was obviously under great stress, along with what it described as a nonexistent investigation and the absence of important witnesses, had damaged the prosecution case.

"We are saddened to see that a 14-year-old boy has been put through trauma by the police and his own father. It is obvious that the child has been tutored to say what he has. For no rhyme or reason, he was taken to a magistrate to record a Section 164 CrPC statement. We have intentionally refrained from delving further into the statement to point out its weaknesses as they relate to the prosecution’s case. The investigation conducted was not sensitive to the fact that a juvenile was involved," it was stated.

Looking at the evidence as a whole, the bench said it was possible that the child and another person, perhaps also a juvenile, were close and that the father, angered by that dynamic, implicated several people and had his son provide exaggerated and manipulated details.

The court also made adverse observations about the conduct of the father and the family’s response to the matter.

"He [victim’s father] cannot be given any concession on account of apprehension of what society would say, as he himself, through his conduct, has shown absolutely no concern for the well-being of the child by being insensitive to what he should have demanded the child be treated like by the criminal justice system. The parents’ failure to notice any odd behaviour in their son and their failure to notice any physical, mental, or emotional scar of the trauma the father said that the child had been through casts a negative light on them. It is a failure of their parenting as well as of the school/madrassa the child attended. It was the father and the investigating officer who weakened the prosecution’s case to the point that doubt was created," it concluded.