' Shahu (30) and Hassan (18) caste Waseer, both residents of village Wallianwali (Chak No, 537) within the area of Police Station, Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura were sent up for trial before Mr. Masood Ansari, Magistrate II Class, Sheikhupura for the offence under section 354, Pakistan Penal Code on the allegation that they had on 16th March 1966, at about 10-11 a.m. Assaulted or used criminal force to Mst. Hayat Bibi (P. W. 4), with the intention to outrage her modesty. At the conclusion of trial both accused were pronounced guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Magistrate, the accused appealed before learned District Magistrate, Sheikhupura under section 407, Criminal Procedure Code which was heard and disposed of by an Additional District Magistrate duly empowered to hear such appeals under subsection (2) of the said section. The Appellate Court agreed with the finding of learned trial Magistrate and rejected .He appeal maintaining conviction and sentence of the accused. Hence, this petition in revision under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code to challenge concurrent finding of two trial Courts holding the accused guilty.
2. Facts of the case are that on the day of incident Mst. Salabat Bibi (P. W. 3) and her daughter Mst.
Hayat Bibi (P. W. 4) aged about 22 years were carrying home mud from a village pond which is at a distance of 5/6 acres from Abadi. Mst. Hayat Bibi was slightly behind her mother. As they went past by the shop of Bhola Cobbler, both the petitioners caught hold of Mst. Hayat Bibi by his arms and tried to fell her on the ground. She raised alarm which attracted Shera and Anwar (P. Ws. 1/2) to the site. They reprimanded the petitioners whereat they took to heels. Mst. Hayat Bibi left for police station to report the occurrence but she was brought back by Ghaus Lambardar of the village.
Noor Muhammad (P. W. 5) who was then posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station, Chuharkana happened to visit the village two days later, viz. On 18-3-1966 for usual patrol. Mst.
Salabat Bibi appeared before him and recorded her statement (PA) on the basis of which formal First Information Report was entered at the police station by Muhammad Ashraf Head Constable.
Five witnesses in all were examined on the side of the prosecution. The petitioners repudiated the charge pleading false implication in the case due to enmity with the witnesses. No evidence was led in defence excepting that copy of Nikahnama (DA) evidencing marriage of Mst. Hayat Bibi with Anwar (P. W. 2) was tendered in evidence. On consideration of evidence examined before him, learned trial Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioners and charge had been fully established against them. Learned Additional District Magistrate also took the same view of evidence in the case.
3. I have been taken through record by learned counsel for the petitioners. Mst. Salabat Bibi and Mst. Hayat Bibi (P. Ws. 3/4) had in their statements confirmed the allegations which the former had made in her report (PA) to the Police. Shera and Anwar (P. Ws. 1/2) have fully corroborated the statements of the above two female witnesses. They both had said that they were present at the nearby shop of Bholla. Cobbler. They had rushed to the site on hearing alarm and saw that the petitioners had caught hold of Mst. Hayat Bibi (P. W. 4) by her arms and wanted to fell her on the ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any flaw in the statements of these two witnesses or they had made false statements for reasons of animosity against the petitioners or they were in any way under the influence of Mst. Salabat Bibi, a widowed lady. There is no reason to suppose even that Mst. Salabat Bibi however lonely or helpless she may have been could have agreed to place honour of an unmarried daughter at the bar of the Court for a false case against the petitioners. Conviction of the petitioners was sought to be assailed on the ground of delay of two days in report. Delay in the report has been properly explained by Mst. Hayat Bibi. It is not to draw on wild imagination to say that it was not possible for a widow woman to ignore the wishes of Lambardar and have the courage to face the well-anticipated reaction on the part of the Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the version of Mst. Salabat Bibi that she was kept by Ghaus Lambardar from proceeding to Police Station to report could not be believed for the reason that the Lumbrdar was not examined in evidence. I am not impressed favourably by this argument. Prosecution is not obliged to lead evidence on matters incidental to the charge against the accused. The Lambardar was not expected to admit the allegation against him and expose himself to the risk of prosecution under section 176, Pakistan Penal Code. Delay in the first information report is not per se sufficient to throw out the charge off hand. It is not a rule of thumb that delay in the report should always justify serious doubts against the prosecution. Delay in the report is at best a suspicious circumstance in the prosecution case which A should put the Courts on its guard in the appraisal of evidence. Delay in the report is not applied like rule of limitation in civil matters. The contention is repelled and conviction of the petitioners is maintained.
4. The further contention that sentence of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone which comes to about six weeks is really inescapable. Unfortunately, long delay of thirteen years in hearing and disposal of the petition in revision confers impunity on the petitioners for serving the unexpired portion of their sentences. It will not be reasonable to push the petitioners back to jail to serve the remainder penalty after fourteen years of the occurrence, though the sentence already undergone was grossly inadequate and out of proportion to the nature of the offence involving moral turpitude. For this compelling reason sentence of the petitioners is reduced to that already undergone. They stand discharged o their bail bonds. Ordered accordingly.