Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.2002 of the learned Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad passed in Jail Criminal Appeal No, 219-1 of 2001 filed by appellant Muhammad Sharif, whereby his conviction under Section 16 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance' and sentence to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs, Five thousand or in default to undergo S.I. for three months and conviction under Section 10(2) of the Ordinance and sentence to undergo ten years R.I. with fine of Rs, Five thousand or in default to undergo S.I. for three months awarded by the learned Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif vide judgment dated 12.10.2001 were maintained. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively by the trial Court, which were also maintained. However, he was extended benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, which was also maintained.
2. Leave to appeal has been granted by this Court by means of order dated 24.4.2003 to reappraise the evidence as to whether the convictions and sentences passed are in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court for appreciation of evidence.
3. The appellant was charged that he on 21.9.1999 abducted Mst. Naseem Bibi for the purpose of zina thereby committed an offence under Section 11 of the Ordinance and further that after abduction he committed zina-bil-jabr with her thereby committed an offence under Section 10(3) of the Ordinance.
4. The appellant is said to have abducted his sister-in-law Mst. Naseem Bibi on 21.9.1999 when PW- 5 Muhammad Yasin and PW-6 Mokha had seen them. The incident was confined to their family, therefore, efforts were made through punchayat to get back Mst. Naseem Bibi but when she was not returned, the complainant lodged report at police station Malka Hans. The trial Court convicted the appellant on the testimony of PW-4 Liaqat Ali coupled with the statements of PW-5 Muhammad Yasin and PW6 Mokha. Besides on the report of one Haji Muhammad Bux proceedings were initiated under Section 174 CLP.C. against the petitioner after the death of Mst.
Naseem Bibi, victim due to miscarriage of the premature child, wherein the victim was named as wife of the appellant.
5. The appellant in the jail petition has submitted that there was no evidence on record to connect him with the commission of crime and further that PWs were interested and inimical to him. He further submitted that the learned Federal Shariat Court and the trial Court have not appreciated the evidence in the light of principles laid down by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice.
6. We have heard Raja Saeed Akram, learned AAG, Punjab on behalf of the State and have perused the record with his assistance.
7. I may be observed that appellant was charged under Section 11 and Section 10(3) of the Ordinance, whereas he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 16 and 10(2) of the Ordinance. It is true that there is no embargo in convicting and sentencing the appellant for an offence other than charged with, as provided under Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however Sections 16 and 10(2) of the Ordinance are reproduced as under:-- "16. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman. Whoever takes entices away any woman with intent that she may have illicit inter-course with any person, or conceals or detains with intent any woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to seven years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine."
"10. .................
(2) Whoever commits zinc liable to tazir shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a terms which may extend to ten years and with whipping numbering thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine."
PW-4 Liaqat Ali has deposed that the appellant had developed illicit relations with his younger sister Mst. Naseem Bibi, who was a virgin and when the elders were not in the house, 'the appellant took away Ms/. Naseem Bibi with him for illicit purpose and further that appellant was seen taking away Mst. Naseern Bibi by PWs Muhammad Yasin and Mokha. PW-5 Muhammad Yasin has deposed that when he was standing alongwith Mokha at Pakpattan bus stand he saw the appellant alongwith Mst. Naseem Bibi (since dead) boardiiig a bus for Bahawalnagar. PW-6 Mokha has corroborated what has been said by PW-5 Muhammad Yasin, PW-7 Muhammad Asghar deposed that he received information that Mst. Naseem Bibi has died due to her miscarriage in Bahawalnagar. PW- 9 Muhammad Nausherwan, SI has deposed that complainant' has submitted an application Ex. P.B. for registration of a case against the appellant. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. has denied the commission of offence and has further stated that abortion was made by the mother of Mst. Naseem Bibi herself and that he has neither caused any miscarriage, nor has committed zina with her, so also he denied to have abducted the deceased Mst. Naseem Bibi.
9. Admittedly, it is not disputed that the occurrence had taken place. It is also an admitted fact that Mst. Naseem Bibi deceased was sister of wife of the appellant and was enticed away on 21.9.1999 by him and she remained with him till her death on 1.4.2000. There is also no denial of the fact that she died due to miscarriage of premature child, which too occurred during the period she was residing with the appellant and the above act was done in order to conceal the fact of her being pregnant. Ocular version furnished by PWs Muhammad Yasin and Mokha, that they saw the appellant alongwith Mst. Naseem Bibi, while boarding a bus going to Bahawalnagar, too implicate the appellant with the commission of offence. The two Courts below have apprised the evidence furnished by the prosecution fully and rightly convicted the appellant. It has rightly been held by the two Courts below that due to such an immoral act of appellant, the entire family of his in-laws was ruined. Accordingly, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is maintained. The appeal being devoid of force is dismissed.