Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, J.--The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court dated 2.12.2003 wherein their appeals against their conviction were dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 2-12-2003. Detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment. However necessary facts out of which the aforesaid petition arises are that petitioners are involved in case FIR No. 110/99 which was registered on 20-2-1999 under Section 363/377 PPC and Section 16- 10(3)/12 of the Offence of Zina (EOH) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Saddar, Rabim Yar Khan on the complaint of Safia Bibi PW-7 mother of the victims. According to the contents of the FIR the case of the prosecution is as follows:-- "The occurrence took place some five months before 20.2.1999 when Mst. Safia Bibi appeared before the police and lodged FIR Ex. PD at Police Station. Saddar, Rahimyar Khan to the effect that her son Akhtar Ali, aged 12/13 years and daughter Mst. Shahnaz aged 11/12 years left the house for bringing grass from the land of Muhammad Tufail but did not return for about 2/3 hours.
Thereupon she got worried and went in their search. She alleged that when she reached near Kundi Peer she met Muhammad Arshad and Rashid Ahmad who on her inquiry informed her that sometime prior they had seen a white colour car being driven by Manzoor Ahmad Gopang.
Therefrom Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif, Bashif Alimad and Najo deboarded at Same-Nala.
Mushtaq Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad caught hold of the two children and, taking them along, in the car drove it away towards Rahimyar Khan. Thereafter, immediately, she alongwith her son Muhammad Aslam and Rashid Ahmad went to Manzoor Ahmad Gopang who told her that Mushtaq Ahmad whom he had dropped them at the Airport had taken them away. She further stated that despite lot of search she failed to find out her children. Then she went to Dera of Irfa Gojar where Manzoor Ahmad accused, while admitting that he had taken the two children alongwith Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif, Bashir Ahmad and Najo, will try to search them out and return them accordingly. However, he applied delaying tactics and then flatly refused to do so.
She requested that her children who had been abducted by aforementioned accused may be recovered."
2. The Investigating Agency after investigating the matter had submitted challan against the petitioners and their acquitted co-accused before competent Court. The Trial Court had completed legal formalities, i.e., recording of the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and the statement, of the accused. The Additional Sessions Judge Rahimyar Khan vide its judgment dated 26-6-2002 convicted and sentence as under:-- Name of accusedUnder SectionSentence Mushtaq Ahmed337 PPC 10 years R.I. with a fine of Saeed Ahmed Rs. 40,000/-, in case of default to further undergo 3 months S.I. 10(3) of Offence12 years R.I. each. Both the of Zina (EOH)punishments were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit Ordinance, 1979.of Section 382 Cr.P.C. was also extended to them.
3.It is pertinent to mention here that the trial Court had acquitted the other six co-accused.
Petitioners being aggrieved filed Jail Criminal. Appeal No. 157/I of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 176/I of 2002 before the Federal Shariat Court which were dismissed vide impugned judgment as mentioned above. Hence the present petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR was lodged by the complainant after considerable delay without explaining the delay and this fact was not considered by both the Courts below in its true perspective. He further submits that both the Courts below had convicted the petitioners on the solitary statements of PW-9 Mst. Shehnaz Kausar and PW-10 Akbar Ali. He further submits that prosecution had failed to establish the charges of sodomy or Zina-bil-jabr beyond any shadow of doubt. He further submits that there was no corroboration available on record qua the statements of victims and also not supported by any medico legal report and this aspect of the case was also not examined by the Courts below. He further submits that petitioners were involved in a case on account of family dispute between the parties but this fact was not appreciated and considered by the Courts below in its true perspective. Petitioners were not convicted by the trial Court under Section 363 PPC. This factum belies the contents of the FIR but both the Courts below had not considered this aspect of the case. He sums up his arguments that several other accused nominated by the complainant had been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, petitioners could not be convicted on the basis of the same evidence.
5.We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. The trial Court had acquitted their co-accused who were only charged for taking the victims away and this piece of evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court as the statement of both the victims PW-9 Mst. Shehnaz Kausar and PW-10 Akbar Ali lacked corroboration to that extent PW- 6 Rashid Ahmad in his statement as he did not named any one of them and mentioned only present petitioners for the commission of offence. Therefore, last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force as the case of their acquitted co-accused were distinguished on facts and law which was duly noted by both the Courts below. We have also examined the record and found that findings of the Courts below were justified as the same was result of proper appreciation of evidence. It is consistent view of this Court, that in rape cases mere statement of the victim is sufficient to connect the petitioners with the commission, of offence in case the statement of the victim inspires confidence. In the present case both the Courts below have given concurrent conclusions that statements of both the victims (PW-9 and PW-10), inspire confidence and connected the petitioners with the commission of offence. They had faced lengthy cross- examination by the defence but defence has failed to shake, their veracity. The statement of PW-9 was duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Tahira Afzal Durrani who had categorically stated that her hymen was absent and she was pregnant. Her statement was also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Malik Saeed Akhtar Radiologist PW-1 who had examined PW-9 and also performed her ultra-sound according to which she was pregnant of about 18 weeks. Both the Courts below were justified to believe the statements of the aforesaid witnesses after reappraisal of evidence. The trial Court was justified to dis-believe the defence version and upheld by the learned Federal Shariat Court. It is not believed or appealed to reason to observe that one sane person would ever like to put at stake his or her family honour as well as career of young un- married daughter for such petty disputes as alleged by the defence. Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence have concurrently convicted the petitioners with cogent reasons keeping in view all the principles laid down by this Court in the safe administration of justice. This Court as a rule should give due weight and consideration to the opinion of the Courts below and in particular to the opinion of the Court of the first instance which had advantage of hearing the parties, witnesses and watching their demeanour. Normally this Court, does not, interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the primary Courts or a Federal Shariat Court when it is satisfied that the findings of the Courts below are on the whole reasonable and are not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or any provision of law or any accepted principle concerning the appreciation of evidence. This would be notwithstanding that a different view might also be possible as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. Reference can be made to the following judgments:-- 1.Fazle Razaq v. Jan Sadiq and others (1985 SCM R 128)
2.Abdul Khaliq v. The Stale (1986 SCM R. 35)
3.Mujahid Hussain v. The State (1984 SCM R 54)
4. Noora and another v. The State (PLD 1973 S.C. 469)
6. For what has been disctissed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave refused.