' MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, J.--- This jail criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 14-4- 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur District Okara, whereby the appellant Maqsood Ahmed has been convicted under section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to four years' R.I. And to pay a sum of Rs,10,000 as compensation to the victim and in default of payment to further undergo two months S.-I. The appellant has also been extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the F.I.R. No,267 dated 23-7-2004 registered with Police Station, Haveli Lakha, District Okara at the instance of Muhammad Yasin, father of the victim Mst. Sajida Parveen, are that complainant is resident of Amlikay Suhag and is labourer by profession. On 17-7- 2004 at 1-00 p.m. The complainant along with his inmates was away on account of labour, his wife Mst. Halima and his daughter Mst. Sajida Parveen (victim) who was married with Talib son of Shehbaz one month prior to the occurrence was alone in the house as Mst. Halima, his wife had gone in the neighbourhood, when she came back, she did not find Mst. Sajida Parveen. After search when she was not found, the complainant was informed about the missing of Sajida Parveen by his wife. The complainant during search was told by Arif son of Shehbaz and Iqbal son of Rehmat Ali that they had seen accused Maqsood Ahmed armed with .30 bore pistol and Alamgir, taking forcibly Mst. Sajida Parveen on a motorcycle going towards Bask Pur. As the complainant did not succeed to trace her daughter, then reported to the police that the accused have abducted his daughter for the purpose of Zina Haraam and action be taken against them and his daughter be got recovered.
3. The case was investigated and during investigation Mst. Sajida Parveen was produced before the Investigating Officer by the complainant on 29-7-2004. She was got medically examined by the police and her statement under section 161 was recorded wherein Mst. Sajida Parveen levelled allegation of her abduction and thereafter Zinabil-Jabr by both the accused named in the F.I.R.
After cancellation of pre-arrest bail, Alamgir accused was arrested on 8-9-2004 while Maqsood accused was arrested on 9-6-2005 and thereafter complete challan was submitted against both the accused. The trial Court charge-sheeted both the accused and they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses and also tendered in evidence medical report of victim, positive report of Chemical Examiner wherein the swabs taken, were found stained with semen and also the report regarding potency of accused Maqsood Ahmad. After close of the prosecution evidence the statement of both the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Wherein they took the plea that no independent witness has come forward and the P. Ws {{BLUR TEXT}} produced, by the Kos5ctit3aaltie4innfe et:slated . Further stiltfdgp.t they have bee41 iVIC#41491X1.)0.1err6is9V ire innocent. AOlth.Of thein neither .Chow ni14 vatTp%; ou,Rathi twde,f., section 340 4,,cr, pps:wec_ex gtefri0,?e of the plo;Seention cYwkIIK, both the accused from charge under section 16 of Offence Ot'glita (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 while Maqsood Ahmad accused alone was found guilty oha ,tinderi Iectibn :of,,,,OffenceAlf IZinA..Anforeemeth of illudoitid)=.01rdiriance;-1979.F'aild IhustZcmAdotectandsenteticecEltkAiOted talieve. HoWever,,,ico- accused v'.(at atquittedfrortialbthmeharget :Hence this jail criminal diveakby Maqspoid,Ahutiadagainst his Cg113/jetiOil sentence. 00- NJ .Rtot.u-Aoliq lr ,luods1 io 3(11;ml:is Co '/8-44 .Cw %51WItri 7lil (r'iW Itrolf; AF'.Ff! 44%14 99.4.MO)filFATAPPSIOt .01kafg KO ;MAO qiqq9At has be,c4 Pleaf444.9 Algq*ttti(ka.99k49.0';ANINA.LiPIPR441,11. Iserl WAWMPFin-2itg;, wfqi1.1140k Mohammad YPPillARP141, iMi44.111-1PulgiNs.A; Sajida Parveen, the slier .As well, as the sfiedical,eyi4wpfst Nykle Maqsood Ahmad has been,, convicted for ifrPAPP1)ki:ofii441T1*-4a1F0744.1;Mq- ParvtrAll witlx*AR further in4eperickiik F,,oscpbor,,aiivearRviknpRi hence conviction, Appellant is illegaL., FuTther asgpfed fliaiiNtborhe,accusecl, were charse0,7 all the witnesses regardihg-,esAan*Aio tglitiffpce under sectiorkalstf Offence of ZinA.(EnforcenFitt;CA-4404,11i0rdinance while p witnesses have been disbeliv,404 ggisrfrtig.41ess.y.Ithout any,figthgr corroborative .Incle,pcnde% Ovidenced,,440 gRyMoR, and ,sent4s awarded to appellant Maqsood Anniad,9mhifhArgeqvislg section Oa) of the said Ordinance is also illegal and unwarranted by law. Further argued by' 'the leoatied ParVeerAral Ittinitteitly a 'Married laei tahtl pinWitiite,result 6letheChetnical trade biVittuffoiNcernktiettiiff; of .Theflppellanf for edirunistsi6h4fintial tieen (ftueTthit as's uming without cone edifigi Mat Salida veen had left the house of her parents' with her oWitittteiivilPiitid itexiiained with the appellant for 10/111fdays and hersellithd edthe' bAek, 'therefore, it is evident;that She' was 442't onsenting party and nP one had 'committed Zina-bil-Jalit, with her;', therefore, conviction of the appellant Witter section 16(3)4444Cinaintairitible. ,ou trP
7. (sic) On the other hand learned D.P.G., Punjab has argued muttiou prosecution has fully proved the offence of commission of Zina with 1st. Sajida 2Parveen, P. W.3 by Maqsood'9Atiiiiittiti4ei, in respect 'he liar referred the itleifitit 'evidgiia 08E4'0 re of Chemical Examiner and fii4e'r AFevidgnee'lfififiteriribiffitMSVigairia Parveen. However, the leatied 'teanidi'dlOoneedeethattinuffie circumstances of the Case it appears that144.' gaftdV-Pkiiteen'aitit consenting party, thus the 'ci:rivietibtf 41)ilit6rkibff6e ,:r.: ,!Trioit I f ;?." Irrahrt5q5b,th on tuft fi5lri = itic= geatibir, 10(2)="efi -Offence of Zindib(Enforcetnent nif,VHutlood)
Ordinance, 1979. .10 b...Voriaib di I.Mqc :t=i=lehrdtAlletord perused. 5n13:\ 7 I.
9. The trial Court has come to- .a conclusion that no offence under section 16 of the Ordinance has been made out against any of the accused, hence both the lansid ihiv'efblien acquitted.
Furthermore against the said acquittal neither,hy the tate nor by the complainant any appeal has been filed against=11?6''' uittal from the charge under section 16 of the saiCOrgindttset,TIAMOsexitynt that Mst. Sajida Parveen being the first cousin of accused Maqsood- had easy excess to him and thus no offence under section.Wethesaid Ordinance has been committed by any of the accused.
10. As regards the conviction of the appellant Maqsood Ahmad under section 10(3) of.Tliersai&Ordiiiiii86,4:1fitTof. The view that if she had with her own free will went to Maqsood Ahmad with whom she war to" niarri iticili4i&witliLhifti for 1O/11 period neither she resisted nor riksfilr iny lagurf;tFirAl5PthFi,l1r,,,hM been enjoying the sexual intercOthTeby 'the said dallied -and the'redflet, centc bagicteRher nwsi,cthereforeAt tggina- Oftlabc.Neither she ever re.Skted:tinr,,,,Ale4ito.,*IteIntelapdicari AAletRIFttgl..:Fillch she was medically el(43111PeA lat10.!)!ON cif4PA)F4-91 Pni;-2,q94)-theri;,4y4ik9tiliwckozge.t4,1144AFEwm f.9,S,1141.-YohiFic34.8 astthe;e wrmine tnitApf yaplencempFitieSprettit cmtsdfebx eonduded,..thfIriS4StWAI aliFf4TnntiPg IRTYAr c9Ri.t4sstfR;4i.PJa,f therefpre, coRTIOOR4theimegdActAdeg,secynall0(3) ef(pfetlecEoi zinal'EhroiN9MAKASlifloP09.1%is IWtl Mainta41#5A.911'qNFEt fNqiiiO4.* 1,040%)9.15111P.110.-Y O9b tN*i? finf5kIti, i?reMi'Pog-Miljqr.41140A.:4*,..0.1gittigAel:PrrriSIctiRIAlf-Wiliing aPPI4sF4A, a(10950 4.49.4.F4.111*Onnirt9g.i441S) Pft9FFP:cifinaie0. commission faffacluACISP..- cstgPfkilqfdv/45g0A (Enforcemnig,E9f kki.49,00)119r4IlialiccoglaRielAS INPFARYA4f4aa** Maggod klwaft..,AccAN4,011 thg411s Off PrAlf(1940I1 90Slart*: 4NctRit shadow of doubt. A f_TS (I] ..)11filallif 11) 11A2',#.wciRcil*5'34as be.9.10AMqt,a11911Rbe,tAe.f9illOctin and sentence ,dwpden to, the appell,a* under kiti'51feii984/11det However, as the commission ofioge.Frit UncjgiSetCji,9591. O9pffirm cirdinancp ,Iiern proved. Tkrqugk FrecIibls .Findgfie k4reofg Maqsood AhmeclAcwisefl Ar?Ie,r(g,W.19}NyIptsfIgi%0Evksmainicx.R(2),10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance and sentenced to two yegrsiA.,I, HershellInIKI.TaY R.p.1%0Q0:insiefaultrwhereof to further undergo three months S.-I. With benefit of section 382-B.
Cr.P.C. t./1,-falc)itibbtru,btsi,),
11. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence the appeal is disposed of. {{BLUR TEXT}}