' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Appellant Irfan alias Fani was tried in case F.I.R. No, 349, dated 17-6- 2008 registered under sections 376/511 1377-L(ii), P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on the allegation that he made an attempt to commit rape with Mst. Iqra Aslam, daughter of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra vide judgment, dated 26-5-2009 convicted Irfan alias Fani appellant under section 376 read with section 511 and section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. The appellant was sentenced as under:-- ' Convicted under section 511/376, P.P.C. And sentenced with imprisonment for 5 years' R.I. He was also convicted under section 337-L2 for causing injuries to victim Iqra Aslam and was sentenced with damn of Rs,5,000 In case of default imprisonment for a term of 15 days. He was allowed benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 16-6-2008 at about 1-00 p.m. Mst. Iqra Aslam daughter of the complainant aged 11 years was going her home from school. When she reached near Nai Abadi, suddenly Irfan alias Fani (appellant) came out from his house, caught hold of her arm and forcibly took her in the bunch of Keekar trees and attempted to commit rape with her. During the occurrence, there were wounds on the back of Mst. Iqra Aslam because of thorns of Keekar trees.
On her hue and cry, the P. Ws. Attracted at the spot and on seeing them, the appellant Irfan alias Fani fled away from the spot.
4. Police after completing the formalities submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Against the appellant.
5. Formal charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He produced documentary evidence in his defence, however, did not opt to appear as his own witness as provided under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations levelled against him.
6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as detailed above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that there are material contradictions between the statements of eye-witnesses and the victim. Tariq Rauf (P W.3) stated that there was no Maila of Peer Jholay Shah whereas, this fact was admitted by the victim.
Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.4) has admitted, in his cross-examination, that schools were closed on the day of occurrence and as such the story of the prosecution that the minor girl was coming from school is not acceptable; that the victim has admitted that the Urs of Peer Jholay Shah was going to be celebrated on 16-6-2008 and as such the story does not appear to be probable. Learned counsel submits that the appeal may be accepted and the appellant be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposes this appeal on the grounds that the appellant was nominated in the F.I.R.; that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt; that even if the evidence of Tariq Rauf (P.W.3) and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.4) is excluded, the charge is proved against the appellant from the statement of the victim, medical report and other evidence available on the file; that a father will not involve his real minor daughter in such like case; that the appeal be dismissed.
9. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
10. In this case, the F.I.R. Was registered on 17-6-2008 at 9-15 a.m. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W.1 is the doctor who medically examined the victim and found the following injuries on her person:-- ' Injury No,
1. A linear scratch mark 10 x 0.1 c.m. With brown scab 3 c.m. From mid line 20 c.m. From tip of shoulder on back of right chest.
' Injury No,
2. Linear scratch mark 9 x 0.1 c.m. With brown scab on back in the mid line.
' Injury No,3. Linear scratch mark 12 x 0.1 c.m. With brown scab on back of left chest 14 c.m. From mid line at lower part.
' Injury No,4. Linear scratch mark 12 x 0.1 c.m. With brown scab on back of left chest 3 c.m. Medial to injury No,3.
' Muhammad Aslam complainant (P.W.2.), admittedly, was not present at the place of occurrence.
Tariq Rouf (P.W.3) and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.4) have stated that they have witnessed this occurrence but Tariq Rouf (P.W.3) was not resident of the area and he was present at the place of occurrence per chance. However, P.W.4 Muhammad Iqbal is resident of the area and is a school teacher, whereas, Mst. Iqra Aslam (P.W.5) is the victim of this incident who categorically stated that it was the appellant who attempted to commit rape with her. Before recording her statement, learned trial Court has asked certain questions from her to ascertain as to whether she was mature to make a statement or not in view of Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and she replied the questions correctly and confidently. Thereafter, her statement was recorded which is reproduced hereunder:-- "On 16-6-2008 when I was returning back from school to my house, as soon as I reached near the new abadi, then Irfan suddenly emerged from his house. He caught hold my arm and tried to drag me. I raised hue and cry. Then he took me to into the bushes of keeker trees. Then I raised hue and cry then Trig and Muhammad Iqbal attracted. I raised hue and cry because the accused after removing his Shalwar tried to commit zina with her. When the P. Ws. Reached, the accused fled away after taking his Shalwar. My shirt was also torn, I also sustained some injuries of keeker trees thorns. My statement was recorded by the police. I was also produced before the M.O. Then the case was registered against the accused."
No enmity of any sort was even suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses. In his reply to question. No,4 i.e, why this case is against you and why the P. Ws. Deposed against you? The appellant deposed that he was involved in this case due to previous enmity because the real uncle of appellant was murdered by the complainant party and the P. Ws. Are relative of victim but this was not put to any of the witnesses, therefore, there was no chance of false implication of the appellant. In a criminal case, it is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which matters, The minor girl has narrated the whole event in a natural manner and nothing adverse was brought on record through her cross-examination. The contention of the learned Additional Prosecutor- General that no father will involve his real minor daughter in such like case appears to be convincing. There is no substance in this appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.