' SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.--- This appeal by Master Khurshid Alam complainant is directed against the judgment, dated 6-4-2004 passed by Ch. Ameer Muhammad Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge Chichawatni, District Sahiwal whereby respondents Nos.1 to .3 were acquitted in a case under sections 16 'and 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 (hereinafter called "the Ordinance").
2. Relevant facts are; on 21-7-2000 a case F.I.R. No,179 of 2000 under section 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was registered at Police Station Ghazi Abad, District Sahiwal at the instance of Master Khurshid Alam, P.W.2. He alleged ' that he had one daughter namely Mst. Shakila Bibi who was unmarried. Indrias Masih respondent No,1 was residing in his Chak and was on visiting terms in his house.. He represented to the appellant that he could get Mst.
Shakila Bibi job in Pak Army as a Captain but he (appellant) would have to pay Rs,80,000 to him.
Allegedly, the appellant arranged this amount after leasing out his agricultural land and paid it to respondent No,
1. On 30-4-2000 he had gone to Chichawatni. When he returned home at about 4- 00 p.m., his wife Mst. Shanti informed him that. Mst. Nasim Bibi daughter of Shari Masih had taken away Mst. Shakila Bibi with her towards the fields on the pretext of answering the call of nature.
Search was initiated for the missing girl. The appellant was informed, by Muhammad Hussain P.W.3 and Noor Ahmad Bajwa (not produced) that Mst. Shakila Bibi and Mst. Nasim Bibi were seen by them boarding a bus, heading towards Harrapah. Despite efforts through Punchayat, the appellant failed to retrieve his, daughter, forcing him to lodge the F.I.R.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 were challaned to Court by the police after investigation. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution produced as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.
' Mst. Shakila Bibi P.W.1 deposed about her alleged abduction. Her father had paid Rs,80,000 to respondent No,1 for getting her appointed as Captain in Pak Army. She went on to state that as she went out of her house in the company of Mst. Nasim Bibi for easing herself in the fields, respondents Nos.1 to 3 who were already present there took her to Lahore. Mst. Nasim Bibi returned home. They had arranged a quarter there and she was kept there. Respondent No,2 subjected her to Zina-bil- Jabr. She went on to state that respondent No,1, thereafter took her along with him to different cities and committed Zina. Ultimately, they went to Chak No,94/6-R and on finding a chance she came back to her house. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate.
' She was cross-examined at great length by the defence. She stated that she did not inform her parents about her departure. She conceded that there were many passengers in the bus including respondents Nos.1 and 2. She did not know the location of the quarter in Lahore but alleged that other residents of the nearby quarters were in connivance with the accused. She stayed in the quarter for two months and then she was taken to Rawalpindi by train where a quarter had been arranged. Ultimately, it was from Chak No,94/6-R that she managed her escape to her house.
' During cross-examination, it came out that her assertion that she was taken out by Mst. Nasim Bibi on the pretext of answering the call of nature was not mentioned in her statement before the Magistrate (Exh.D.A). She admitted that she was not, .Medically examined. She denied the suggestion that since she had not been 'subjected to sexual intercourse, therefore, she did not get herself meditally examined by the doctor. She denied the suggestion that she was arrested by Ghazi Abad Police on the charge of committing theft of gold medals of one Mst. Shazia Hadayat.
She conceded that respondent No,1 was married person having five children. She, however, refuted the suggestion that her father had borrowed Rs,58,000 from respondent No,1 for payment to Mst.
Shazia Hadayat and a quarrel took place between her brother and his in-laws over this amount.
She also denied the suggestion that her father had agreed to lease out his agriculture land to respondent No,1 so as to discharge the financial liability (of Rs,58,000 owed to respondent ' No,1).
5. Master Khurshid Alam P.W.2 supported the prosecution story, as divulged by him in the F.I.R.
(Exh.P.B.). During cross-examination, he stated that respondent No,1 was employed in Pak Army as Sepoy. He (witness) was a retired school teacher. He admitted that he knew that his daughter was not eligible for recruitment as Captain in the Army. He conceded that Mst. Shazia Hadayat had alleged that her medals had been stolen by his daughter Mst. Shakila Bibi. She had' also filed an application against her at Police Station Ghaziabad. Ultimately, the medals were returned to Mst.
Shazia Hadayat by respondent No,
1. He denied the suggestion that Mst. Shakila did not leave his house along with respondent No,1 in his absence. He admitted that he lodged the F.I.R. Two months after the occurrence.
' Statement of Muhammad Hussain was recorded as P.W.3. His testimony was in the nature of Waj Takkar' witness as he claimed to have seen respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the company of Mst. Shakila Bibi boarding a bus.
' He conceded that he was the lessee of the land of the appellant for the last five years.
' Statements of Dr. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.4 and Muhammad Amin P.W.5 are formal in nature.
' Abdul Rashid A.S.-I., P.W.6 deposed about the investigation carried out by him.
6. Ch. Muhammad Rafique, Magistrate 1st Class, Chichawatni deposed that on 16-8-2000 he recorded statement of Mst. Shakila Bibi under section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exh.P.A./1).
' He conceded that at that time the accused was not present before him and he did not summon him for the purpose of, cross-examination of Mst. Shakila Bibi.
7. Respondent No,1, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied all the allegations of the prosecution. He explained the cause of his involvement by taking up the plea that he gave Rs,58,000 to the appellant which were to be paid by him to Mst. Shazia Hadayat. In lieu thereof the appellant had agreed to give his agriculture land to him on lease but he did not do so and instead this false case was foisted upon him. He neither appeared himself as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor opted to produce evidence in his defence.
' Statements of other accused i,e, respondents Nos.2 and 3 need not be referred to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Perusal of statement of Mst. Shakila Bibi under section 164, Cr.P.C. Showed that she, initially, went along with respondents Nos.1 and 2 to Chichawatni. Thereafter, they went to Rawalpindi by train where she was allegedly kept in detention in a quarter and was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length and perused the record.
10. We have reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its tase against the respondents beyond doubt and the learned trial Judge acted justly and fairly in acquitting them.
11. On her own showing, Mst. Shakila Bibi was a mature girl of 19 years of age. She, allegedly, left the house of her parents and went with the respondents to various cities inclusive of Rawalpindi.
Though she alleged that she was subjected to Zina-bin-Jabr by respondent No,1 yet she did not express her willingness to get herself medically examined. No explanation is forthcoming in this behalf. There is no cogent evidence that Zina-bil-Jabr was committed with her by respondent No, I.
' Perusal of her statement made in Court showed that she alleged commission of -Zina-bil-Jabr against respondent No,1 at various places whereas in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She alleged that it was only during her stay at Rawalpindi that respondent No,1 committed this crime.
This discrepancy further made the prosecution case doubtful.
12. There is inordinate delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. For- which no plausible explanation was forthcoming on the record. We are satisfied that the F.I.R. Was lodged after deliberation and possibility of false involvement of the respondents cannot be excluded.
13. As regards the assertion of the appellant that respondent No,1 duped him and deprived him of sum of. Rs,80,000 on the pretext of securing a job for his daughter as Captain in Pakistan Army we find that it remained unproved on record. Khurshid Alam conceded that his daughter was not eligible for employment in Pak Army as a Captain. He is a retired school teacher. It is very difficult to believe that such a literate person, despite being cognizant of ineligibility of his daughter for employment in Pak Army, would hand over Rs,80,000 to respondent No,1 for this purpose.
' On the contrary we find that there is evidence on record to indicate that Mst. Shakila Bibi was accused of having stolen the medals of Mst. Shazia Hadyat and the matter was reported to the police. The plea of respondent No,1 that he gave Rs,58,000 to Khurshid Alam Complainant, for onward payment to Mst. Shazia Hadayat, so as to patch up the matter of theft of medals is not without force. As regards the Waj Takkar' evidence furnished by ' Muhammad Hussain P.W. 3 no importance can be attached to it. He was a lessee of the appellant and, as such, interested in him.
14. It seemed that there was dispute over leasing of land between respondent No,1 and the appellant, in lieu of Rs,58,000 received by the appellant from respondent No,1 and he was falsely implicated in this case.
' The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the respondents and they were rightly acquitted.
15. The learned counsel could not point out any misreading/nonreading of material piece of evidence which could have vitiated the impugned judgment. There was no perversity of approach either. Dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.