CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---We intend to decide captioned petitions by one consolidated judgment arising out of the common impugned judgment of the Federal Shairat Court date 27-11-2002 wherein Criminal Jail Appeals filed by the petitioners against their conviction were dismissed.
However, their sentence of imprisonment was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the said judgment.
2. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment. However, necessary facts out of which the aforesaid petitions arise are that petitioners were involved in case F.I.R. No,6 of 2001 which was registered at Police Station Toisar on 24-3-2001. The contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that Mst. Saliha Bibi along with her mother Mst. Nadar Bakhta and her younger sister namely Mst.
Malisha went to stream for bringing water and washing clothes on 23-2-2001 at about 9-30 a.m., where accused persons namely Daud Khan along with co-accused forcibly abducted Saliha Bibi and injured Mst. Nadar Bakhta. The aforesaid case was registered against petitioners on the report of Baz Meer. The Investigating Agency investigated the matter and found petitioners guilty on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and challan was submitted before the competent Court.
3. Sessions Judge Muskhail at Loralai vide its judgment dated 27-2-2002 convicted the petitioners as follows:-- Name of accused Under section Sentence Gul Noor Dad Khan11 offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979Life imprisonment each; fine of Rs.50,000 each, default of payment of fine two yearsR.I. It is pertinent to mention here that benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended.
4. As mentioned above the petitioners filed Jail Criminal Appeal No,26-Q/2002 (by Gul Noor) and Jail Criminal Appeal No,27-Q of 2002 (by Dad Khan) were dismissed with the aforesaid modification qua reduction of sentence. Hence these Jail Petitions.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that both the Courts below had decided the case against the petitioners without properly scrutinizing the evidence on record. He further maintains that evidence of the eye-witnesses furnished by the prosecution was not sufficient to convict the petitioners with the commission of offence as there were contradictions, improvement in their statements and this fact was not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective.
Confessional statements of the petitioners were not recorded in accordance with law and this fact was also not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective. He further submits that both the Courts below had erred in law to rely upon the circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence was always a weak type of evidence and this fact was also not taken into consideration by the Courts below while convicting the petitioners.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners mil perused the record. It is a settled principle of law that there is no rule or practice that there must be corroboration in every case A of the statement of the prosecutrix in rape cases (Hadood cases) as law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Abdul Khaliq's case PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 325. In the present case the statement of victim was duly corroborated by the two eye-witnesses, namely P.W.5 (Nadir Bakhta) and P.W.6, (Mst. Malisha). It is also admitted fact that the parties are closely related to each other and petitioners had failed to prove that the complainant had any motive to involve the petitioners in such a heinous offence. It is also an admitted fact that F.I.R. Was lodged by the real brother of the victim. False implication by the brother involving his unmarried sister cannot be believed, as brother is not likely to jeopardize the future of his sister. It is an admitted fact that both the Courts below had convicted Gul Noor petitioner as he had facilitated his co-accused Dad Khan to commit the offence in question. It is also an admitted fact that P.W.4 had faced lengthy cross-examination but defence could not shake her testimony. Both the Courts below also observed that her statement was in consonance with the confessional statement of the petitioners.
The ocular account was also supported by the medical evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that Federal Shariat Court had thoroughly appreciating evidence as is evident from paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment coupled with the fact that overwhelming material was available on record against the petitioners, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to make out any justification for reappraisal of evidence. Conviction for abduction and unnatural offence based on straightforward depositions of victim, her mother and her sister as also on medical evidence coupled with the fact that the statement of the abductee was in consonance with the confessional statement of the petitioners as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out that the Courts below had not followed any principle of law while appreciating evidence on record. In the interest of justice and fair play we have also examined the record but could not find, any infirmity or illegality committed by the Courts below. It is a settled principle of law that this Court does not, normally, interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while exercising powers under sub-Article (2-B) of Article 203-F of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:--
(1) Fazle Razaq v. Jan Sadiq and others 1985 SCM R 128
(2) Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1986 SCM R 35.
(3) Mujahid Hussian v. The State 1984 SCM R 54.
(4) Noora and another v. The State PLD 1973 SC 469.
7. In view of what has been discussed above these petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed. Leave is refused.