' Ghulam Shabbir, petitioner alongwith Murad and Manzoor was tried by Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, Magistrate Section 30, Jhang, under section 366, P. P. C. But he was found guilty of having committed an offence under section 363, P. P. C. And was sentenced to three years' R. I. His co- accused Murad and Manzoor were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioner was also charged under section 376, P. P. C. But he was acquitted of that charge. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of conviction passed against him by the learned trial Magistrate on 29th December 1966, which however, was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 16th June 1967. The petitioner filed the present revision petition in this Court against his conviction and it was admitted to hearing on 14th September 1967. The petitioner was also released on bail on 9th October 1967.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 28th February 1963, at sunset time Mst. Bakhan, aged about 15 years, was forcibly taken away by the petitioner, his brothers Abdul Ghafoor and Mehdi Hussain, and Ghulam Baqir and Mohsan Shah sons of Ghulam Akbar Shah, when she came out of her house in village Turbat Haji Shah, P. S. Qadirpur, District Jhang. They took her to village Mondha where they committed rape upon her. After sometime the father of Mst. Bakhan and her sister's husband approached Muhammad Shah father of the petitioner and Ghulam Akbar Shah father of Ghulam Baqir and Mohsin and requested them to return Mst. Bakhan to her father. The petitioner's father and Ghulam Akbar Shah agreed to return Mst. Bakhan on the condition that the matter would not be reported to the Police, After about a week they refused to return Mst. Bakhan, whereupon a petition was submitted to the S. P. Jhang by Mst. Nooran sister of Mst. Bakhan stating all the aforementioned facts which was forwarded to S. H.
0., Qadirpur, who formally registered a case under sections 363/366 and 376/148, P. P. C. On 10th March 1963. After the registration of the case Mst. Bakhan was produced before the Investigating Officer by the petitioner's father who in turn produced her before a Magistrate on 19th March 1963 and got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. She disclosed that she had herself left her house and had gone with the petitioner of her own free will. She, however, stated that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her in village Azizu Machhani where she lived with him for 10 or 11 days. After the investigation of the case the petitioner, Murad and Manzoor Hussain were challaned by the Police under section 366/368, P. P. C. As according to the entries in the birth register the age of Mst. Bakhan was found to be less than 16 years on the day of her abduction. The petitioner was also challenged under section 376, P. P. C.
3. The learned trial Magistrate after considering the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed offence under section 363, P. P. C. Because Mst. Bakhan was under 16 years of age when she left her house and accompanied the petitioner. The above conclusion was also confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner but prays for reduction of sentence awarded to him. It has been stated that the petitioner had already suffered sentence of imprisonment for about four months in the present case when he was released on bail by this Court on 9th October 1967. The present revision petition has come up for hearing after more than 12 years and now it would be too harsh for the petitioner to be sent to Jail to undergo sentence of imprisonment for an offence which was committed about 17 years ago. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has stated that the delay which has occurred in the disposal of the present revision petition may be considered a mitigating circumstance for allowing reduction of sentence to the petitioner as prayed for on his behalf.
5. After examining the record of the case it has been noticed that it took more than three years to the learned trial Magistrate to conclude the trial and during this period the petitioner had been regularly appearing in the trial Court. The agony of a protracted trial and the fact that the petitioner has remained in a state of uncertainty as to the final outcome of the case against him during the last 12 years, cannot be overlooked, while considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence. He has already suffered imprisonment for about four months and before that he had also remained in custody during his trial until he was released on, bail. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be harsh for the petitioner if he is again sent to Jail to suffer any further sentence of imprisonment especially now when he has remained out of Jail for more than 12 years. I accordingly allow the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence. While maintaining his conviction, the sentence of three years' R. I. Awarded to him is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.