LAHORE, Dec 18: A division bench of the Federal Shariat Court on Thursday declared that the statement of a rape victim corroborated by the medical examination report, was enough evidence for a court to conclude that the offence had indeed been committed and warranted conviction.

The observation was made by Justice Abdul Mannan and Justice Saeedur Rehman Farrukh while processing the petition of one Asiya from Samundari, district Faisalabad, who was allegedly raped by Abdur Razzaq and two others. The accused were declared not guilty by the police and they later lodged a case of perjury against the girl.

The police subsequently arrested the girl and her parents on perjury charges, who were released on bail by an additional sessions judge. She later filed a complaint with the trial court seeking quashment of perjury charges. The proceedings on the complaint were adjourned sine die but the hearing of the main case continued for a long time and a number of witnesses were summoned and examined by the trial court.

Assistant Advocate General Raja Abdur Rehman had requested the production of record of perjury charges. The Federal Shariat Court, after examination of the record, ordered quashment of perjury charges against the victim.

While the petition was pending, a lady doctor who had examined the girl stated in the trial court that Asiya was raped. Besides, the girl also alleged that Abdur Razzaq and others had raped her.

The Federal Shariat Court observed that the trial court had unnecessarily prolonged the trial by summoning and examining witnesses whose testimony was not required. It also ruled that police had failed to investigate the case within the confines of law.

PRobe officers: The Federal Shariat Court on Thursday ruled that the subordinate courts trying Hudood cases were under a religious, constitutional and legal obligation to summon the investigating officials as court witnesses even if prosecution failed to produce evidence.

Accepting a petition filed by Mohammad Aslam of Vehari, who was being tried under the Hudood Ordinance, the court also observed that concealment of evidence was forbidden in Islam and was violative of the Objectives Resolution as enshrined in the constitution under Article 2-A.

The single bench of Federal Shariat Court, comprising Justice Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, ruled that trial courts were under a constitutional obligation to find out the truth. Summoning investigation officials was one way of reaching truth, which was not done by the additional sessions judge trying petitioner Mohammad Aslam.

Besides, the police also failed in their duty by concealing facts related to the case.

The petitioner stated that he had, in an application, requested the trial court to summon the five police officers who had investigated the allegations of zina against him as court witnesses. The trial court declined his request. He challenged the decision through a petition which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court.