Juvenile housemaid case: Judge, wife challenge conviction

Two-judge bench issues notice to minor girl, state

ISLAMABAD: A judge and his wife, who were convicted on charges of harming, neglecting and abandoning a juvenile housemaid employed at their residence in the capital, challenged their conviction before the Islamabad High Court on Friday.

Subsequently, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb issued notices to the minor and the state for Monday.

In their appeal, the additional district and sessions judge (ADSJ) Raja Khurram Ali Khan and his wife Maheen Zafar, through their counsels Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Raja Farooq Haider, requested the court to set aside the April 17 judgment on the grounds that conviction to the extent of section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) is based upon speculation, presumption, surmises, conjectures and motive and action of the section which cannot be presumed by the court.



In the appeal, the counsel for the couple said that the “impugned judgment clearly depicts that evidence/data available on the record was not properly looked into by learned single judge in chamber and imposed his own findings which are contrary to law and record.”

Their counsels seem to have turned to the very legal playbooks which Raja was taught to dispense justice to form the basis of their appeal.

They maintained that the judgment shows that evidence available on the record was not seen by the court and that the appellants were convicted on the basis of whims.

“It is a fundamental principle of criminal cases that benefit of every doubt is extended in favour of the accused, but in this case, the prosecution is blessed with the benefit of doubt and conviction is based upon surmises.”



The petition read that the court “had to convict the appellant in any case, thus all benefits were extended in favour of the prosecution in violation of the law on the subject.”

They have questioned that where is the evidence of assault, ill-treat, neglect, abandon or any act or omission which resulted into harm and when the accused have been acquitted on charges of harm – under section 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/506(ii) of PPC – how someone can be punished under section 328-A of PPC.

Among several questions, the counsel has asked if the “prosecution was able to prove that neglect, abandon act, omission, assault or ill-treat was ‘willfully’,” as they asked if it is not willful then what would be the situation.

They added that the prosecution has not even proved the FIR rather it has been established from the record that recitals of FIR are not the contention of the minor and it was manipulated, fabricated and twisted by a prosecution witness, Potohar AC Nishaa Ishtiak.



The petition read that the entire case is based upon the statement of a minor and there is no other direct or indirect evidence on the record, adding that the statement has not been discussed in its true perspective.

They said that the Supreme Court had initiated suo moto proceedings in the matter because of media hype and “it is a matter of common observation that in presence of suo moto proceedings, subordinate courts always influenced by the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court.”

Also, they said, application of compounding of offence was rejected which is a unique and unprecedented example in the history of criminal trials, adding that every day thousands of people are being acquitted in such cases on the basis of compromise and even in non-compoundable offences.

The counsel stated that the convicted judge had passed very strict orders against land grabbers, Islamabad SSP and other senior officers. However, the trial was conducted by the high court under stern media pressure which was created by mafias, regarding which separate applications of appellants were rejected.

The case had grabbed headlines in December 2016 when the judge and his wife were booked and were later charged with assaulting, confining, ill-treating, neglecting, abandoning, harming and injuring the minor housemaid.

They have were accused of keeping the girl in wrongful confinement, burning her hand, beating her with a ladle, detaining her in a storeroom, and threatening her with even worse.

The couple had pleaded ‘not guilty’ after they were indicted and stood trial.

On April 17, IHC’s Justice Aamer Farooq convicted and sentenced the judge and his wife to one year in prison and imposed a fine of Rs50,000 each under section 328-A of PPC. They were exonerated of all other charges.

The court would resume hearing on Monday.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 21^st, 2018.