342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.--Whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to [three thousand rupees], or with both.
COMMENTARY
Bail. Offence under section 342/395/458 P.P.C. Correctness of occurrence falsified by nine PWs through affidavit. Case of further enquiry. 1989 PCr.LJ 1902; 1979 SCMR 30.
No one was initially charged in the F.I.R. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded subsequently which was not in consonance with prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. Said fact alone was sufficient to bring case within the ambit of further inquiry. Co-accused who had been assigned similar role, had already been released on bail. Keeping in view the rule of consistency, accused was also entitled to be released on bail. Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. 2004 PLR (Pesh.) 1067.
I.O. had come to conclusion that case was false. In view of opinions rendered by I.O., case of petitioners became one of further inquiry. Interim pre-arrest bail confirmed. 2006 P.Cr.R. (Lah.) 46.
2. Appraisal of evidence. Evidence of complainant, corroborated by Medical evidence and Chemical Examiner's report had proved that complainant was subjected to sodomy by accused persons. Even in view of evidence of complainant himself, no charge of kidnapping or wrongful confinement was proved on record. Conviction of accused under S. 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and S. 342, P.P.C. had been set aside. Since charge of sodomy was proved against accused persons, they were convicted under S. 377, P.P.C. Accused were convicted after six years of commission of offence and were in jail for the last about 3-1/2 years. Before that accused also remained in custody for certain periods during the trial. Accused in circumstances were sentenced to the imprisonment already suffered by them accordingly. 2004 PCr.LJ (FSC) 1257.
No comments:
Post a Comment