Syed Afzal Haider, J.--This judgment will dispose of two connected Criminal Appeals i.e. (a)
Criminal Appeal No. 155-L/2007 Moved by Jaffar Hussain convict-appellant against his conviction & sentence and (b) Criminal Appeal No. 162-L/2007 lodged by complainant Muhammad Aslam PW.1 against the acquittal of Muhammad Abbas, Lal Hussain, Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Nabi, Hanif and Said Ali, the six co-accused of appellant Jaffar Hussain. The appeals are directed against the same Judgment dated 30.06.2007 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad. Appellant Jaffar Hussain was convicted and sentenced as under: -- {{TABLE}} Under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979.Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 197925 years rigorous imprisonment. {{TABLE}} Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PROSECUTION CASE
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed by complainant Muhammad Aslam PW-1 in his written complaint dated 21.01.1996 Ex.PA about an incident dated 20.01.1996, are that he resides in Chak No. 425/GB alongwith his mother and sisters namely Mst. Nusrat Bibi aged 20 years, Shagufta Bibi aged 13 years and Naila aged eight years. One of his sisters namely Mst. Meraj Bibi was married about 10/11 years ago and resides in Katchi Abadi near Canal Bridge, Tandlianwala. The complainant disclosed that he had friendly relations with Jaffar accused who used to visit their house frequently. The complainant in due course suspected illicit intimacy of Jaffar accused with his sister Mst. Nusrat Bibi whereupon he forbade accused Jaffar from visiting his house. The latter got irritated and a scuffle developed which ended on account of intervention of Wahab and Ahmad Ali. Jaffar accused however left the house of complainant after extending a threat that he would settle the score of this insult. On 20.01.1996 at about 3/4.00 p.m, complainant received a message from his sister Mst. Meraj Bibi through Noor Abbas that she was unwell and she wanted Mst. Nusrat Bibi to come and look after her. On receipt of this information he left his house alongwith his sister Mst. Nusrat Bibi for a visit to Mst. Meraj Bibi. They were waiting for the Bus at the Stop of Chak No. 425/G.B., when a blue colour Dalla (Toyata Hi-Lux) came from Satiana , Road side and stopped near them. Accused Jaffar alighted from that Dalla. Jaffar accused was armed with a .30 bore pistol, Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Sharif were armed with .12 bore rifles while Muhammad Hanif and Saeed accused were armed with .7MM Rifles. They forcibly lifted Mst. Nusrat Bibi and deposited her in the Dalla. They also attempted to abduct the complainant but failed in their attempt as Zulfiqar, Muhammad Sadiq and Noor Ahmad witnesses alongwith a number of people were attracted at the spot. The accused took away his sister Mst. Nusrat Bibi towards Tandlianwala while flourishing their weapons. The purpose of abduction was commission of Zina.
3. The information conveyed by the complainant was formally registered as FIR No. 62/96 Ex.PA/1 by Mushtaq Hussain Muharrar Police Station Tandlianwala on 21.01.1996 at 11.20 a.m. After registration of the case the file was sent to Fateh Khan Assistant Sub-Inspector for investigation.
4. Police investigation commenced as a consequence of registration of crime report. After conclusion of the investigation, the local Police submitted in the Court the investigation completion report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the accused to face trial.
Thereafter charge was framed by the learned trial Court under Sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 against the accused on 14.11.2001. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution, in addition to the documentary evidence, produced 11 witnesses at the trial in support of its case. The gist of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:--
(i) Muhammad Aslam complainant of the case appeared as PW-1. He endorsed the contents of the crime report.
(ii) Mst. Nusrat Bibi, the victim of the incident, appeared as PW-2 to support the prosecution story.
(iii)Noor Ahmad appeared at the trial as PW-3 and stated that six years back at 4/5 '0 clock in the evening, he was present at Adda of Chak No. 425/GB. Aslam and Nusrat Bibi PWs were also standing there. Within 5 minutes of his presence at the Adda, a blue coloured Dalla came from Satiana Road, Faisalabad which stopped at the Adda and five persons namely Jaffer, Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad. Hanif and Saeed emerged out of it. Jaffer had .30 bore pistol in his hand while Ghulam Nabi and Sharif were armed with .12 bore guns and Muhammad Hanif and Saeed were armed with .7 MM Rifles. On coming out of the Dalla they caught hold of Mst. Nusrat Bibi and put her into the Dalla forcibly, left Muhammad Aslam behind and, fled away towards Tandlianwala. He stated that Muhammad Sadiq and Zulfiqar also witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that while leaving the place of occurrence the accused resorted to aerial firing. He proceeded further to state that he had been joining the Police investigation and that they heard that Mst. Nusrat Bibi returned home after four months. He further stated that her brother Muhammad Aslam had brought her back home.
(iv)Muhammad Sadiq appeared as PW-4 to state that about six years ago at 4/5.00 p.m, he was standing near the mosque of Adda of Chak No. 425/G.B., Aslam and Mst. Nusrat were sitting there.
He also stated that after 5/7 minutes a blue coloured Dalla came there from the side of Satiana Road, Faisalabad. Jaffar, Ghulam Nabi, Sharif, Hanif and Saeed alighted from the Dalla. Accused Jaffer was having .30 bore pistol, Ghulam 'Nabi was equipped with .12 bore gun, Saeed was armed with rifle, Hanif was also having .12 bore gun and Sharif was armed with rifle. All of a sudden the accused come out of the Dalla and overpowered Mst. Nusrat Bibi and Aslam who raised hue and cry. They put Mst. Nusrat Bibi in the Dalla and pushed back Muhammad Aslam. Noor Ahmad and Zulfiqar also saw the occurrence. While boarding Mst. Nusrat Bibi in the Dalla they also made aerial firing. He further stated that he had been joining the investigation. He also stated that Mst. Nusrat Bibi was brought back by her brother Muhammad Aslam from Nankana Sharif after a period of four months.
(v)Muhammad son of Sohina appeared at the trial as PW-5 and stated that nearly 53/4 years ago at about 7/8.00 a.m when he was standing at Pul Piplanwala, Muhammad Hussain PW was also with him. He stated that a blue coloured Dalla came there which stopped ahead of them. A girl and two persons came out of the vehicle. The girl made noise which attracted their attention. She rushed towards them and as they reached near her the two persons made good their escape in the Dalla. On enquiry the girl told them that these persons were taking her away forcibly. He further stated that the girl disclosed her name as Mst. Nusrat Bibi. The witness thereafter produced her before Illaqa Magistrate who recorded statement and obtained their thumb impressions on it. He further stated that the learned Illaqa Magistrate detained her in the Court and directed them to go away. He further stated that the Police came to them after 1 1/2 months. His statement was recorded by police.
(vi)Manzoor Ahmad Sub-Inspector appeared as PW-6. He had undertaken investigation of this case on 07.08.1996. On 28.08.1996 he obtained non bailable warrants of arrest of the accused persons from the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. He arrested Muhammad Sharif accused on 07.09.1996 from Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and sent him to judicial lock up on 08.09.1996 and got him medically examined. Then he was transferred and the investigation was entrusted to Khizar Hayat SubInspector/Station House Officer.
(vii) Fateh Khan Sub-Inspector appeared as PW-7 stated that he initiated investigation in this case on 21.08.1996 while he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Tandlianwala. He visited the spot and prepared the site-plan Ex.PB (photostat copy-under objection) of the place of occurrence. He further stated that all the drawings and notes were written by him and bore his signatures. He investigated the case and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who supported 'the complainant's version. He also stated that on 04.02.1996 he was present at Tower Chowk when he received a spy information that Jaffar accused was present at Chak No. 425/GB in the area of Police Station Tandlianwala upon which he arrested him from there and got his physical remand on 05.02.1996. On 18.02.1996 he got him discharged as he was found innocent in this case.
(viii) Dr.Najma Parveen Women Medical Officer appeared as PW-8 stated that on 20.05.1996 she conducted Medicolegal Examination of Mst. Nusrat Bibi. On external examination, there was no marks of violence on any part of her body. On internal examination, hymen was found torn at multiple places, old and healed. Vagina admitted two fingers easily and painlessly. Uterus was 12 week size servix bluish in colour. In her opinion the examinee was 12 weeks pregnant. She further stated that confirmation would be done by ultrasound examination.
(ix)Mushtaq Hussain Assistant Sub-Inspector appeared as PW-9 at the trial stated that on 21.01.1996 when he was posted as Moharrar at Police Station Tandlianwala, a complaint Ex.PA was received by him. Consequently he drafted formal F.I.R Ex.PA/1 on the basis of written complaint without any addition or omission. He further stated that the F.I.R was signed by him and sent to Fateh Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, PW-7, for investigation.
(x)Abbas Ali Assistant Sub-Inspector appeared as PW-10 and stated that on 18.03.1997, the bail petition of accused Muhammad Abbas and Lal was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereafter he arrested both the accused and sent them to Judicial Lock Up on 19.03.1997.
(xi)On 08.10.2003 Muhammad Nazir Inspector Police, since retired, appeared as PW-11, stated that on 04.07.1996 when he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Bahlak, investigation of this case was entrusted to him by the orders of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, whereafter on 07.07.1996, he went to Chak No. 14 Syedwala, recorded statements of PWs Muhammad and Muhammad Hussain under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that of Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Gorryia Magistrate. He also recorded statement of lady doctor Najma Parveen. He further stated that he visited the place of occurrence, recorded statements of witnesses Noor Muhammad, Aslam, Sadiq and Zulfiqar. He also recorded the statements of Mst.
Nusrat Parveen abductee and Khizar Hayat Arbitrator. He further stated that he also got legal advice from PDSP Faisalabad and directed the Station House Officer Police Station Tandlianwala to prepare a report against the accused persons.
DEFENCE PLEA
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Abbas, Lal, Muhammad Sharif, Jaffar Hussain, Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Hanif and Saeed Ali were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All of them, inter-alia, pleaded innocence and claimed that they had been falsely involved due to enmity. Since all the accused except Jaffar Hussain have been acquitted so there is no need to narrate the defence plea of all the accused. Only Jaffar Hussain was convicted and sentenced. In reply to the question "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?", he stated as follows:-- "This case is result of enmity. The factual position is this that Mst. Razia who was murdered by Younas and Abdul Razzaq sons of Bagh Ali was real niece of me and accused Lal, Saeed, Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Nabi and she was cousin of Muhammad Hanif and Abbas accused.
The murder case was registered against Younas and Abdul Razzaq above mentioned who are the Salas of Khadim and Rafique sons of Muhammad Bakhsh. Khadim and Rafique are Peers of complainant, PWs Nusrat Bibi, Aslam etc. Mst. Razia's murder case was registered at Police Station Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. For compelling to compromise in that murder case, Khadim and Rafique above mentioned Peers used Mst. Nusrat Bibi as tool and this false, frivolous and baseless case has been registered against me. In murder case of Mst. Razia Bibi, I and Hanif are eye- witnesses. We all the accused interse are related to one another. I am brother of Ghulam Nabi, Sharif is brother in law of Lal. Hanif is real cousin of me and Sharif. Ghulam Nabi and Saeed are real Khalazad whereas Lal accused is real uncle of-Abbas.' The accused Jaffar Hussain did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal' Procedure. However, the accused produced Farooq Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CIA Headquarters, Faisalabad as ,DW-1 who stated that on 17.02.1996 when he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Tandlianwala, Fateh Khan Sub- Inspector PW-7 produced the contending parties of this case before him. He heard them, and interrogated the case. He agreed with the investigation conducted by Fateh Khan Sub-Inspector PW-7. On 25.02.1996 he prepared a report for cancellation of this case which bore his signatures. ARGUMENTS OF CONTENDING PARTIES
7. We have gone through the record of this case and have also perused the evidence produced by prosecution and defence. The statement of accused has been considered. We have scanned relevant portions of the impugned judgment. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant, complainant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the following points for our consideration:--
(i) That in the examination-in-chief the Complainant Muhammad Aslam himself stated that 15/16 days after the lodging of the FIR Jaffar accused visited Maulvi Muhammad Aslam in his village. On coming to know about his arrival he went to the police and Jaffar accused was apprehended and taken to the police station. After investigation the accused was discharged. It is contended that the complainant himself admits that two weeks after the incident of abduction the accused visited his village but neither the abductee, or the Dalla and the weapons of offence were recovered nor was the accused found involved in the case by the police. Learned Counsel further referred to the examination-in-chief of this witness to state that he also filed a constitutional petition bearing W.P No. 3758/1996 in the High Court which was dismissed on 14.04.1996. The learned Counsel relied upon Para 3 of the order of the learned Judge which reads as under:-- "I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The police after thorough investigation found the accused/ respondent as innocent. The learned Magistrate also after going through the police file found that no tangible evidence has been collected by the police to justify the submissions of the challan hence he accordingly discharged him. The order of the learned Magistrate is speaking one. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of filing a private complaint. It present to interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if during the investigation, the police collected. evidence regarding the involvement of the accused-in the case then the accused can be proceeded against in accordance with law by the police."
(ii)It was next contended that the discharge report dated 18.02.1996 was challenged by the complainant but it was subsequently removed from the file by the complainant.
(iii)Learned Counsel also contended that the said constitutional petition was moved with the prayer that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 18.02.1996 discharging the accused be set aside. His contention is that the report was in existence and that was the reason that it was challenged because he could not have challenged a non-existing order.
(iv)It is then contended that first Investigating Officer Fateh Khan, PW.7, had thoroughly investigated the case and found the accused innocent and discharged him. It is further asserted that the Investigating Officer verified the defence of Jaffar accused. He verified his defence which was that a false case was got registered to frustrate the crime report FIR No. 15/95 under Section 302/34 of the. Pakistan Penal Code registered with Police Station Chishtian District Bahawalnagar.
(v)That the investigation carried out by Fateh Khan PW.7 was further verified by Farooq Ahmed DSP CIA who appeared at the trial as DW. 1.
(vi)That the investigation carried out by Muhammad Nazir PW. 11 was illegal for the simple reason that there is no order of entrustment of investigation to him by any superior officer. The learned Counsel contended that was violence of the Police Rules.
(vii) The learned Counsel then referred td the cross-examination of PW.11 to wage that the witness did not remember whether he had summoned the accused persons at the time of investigation or not. However he stated that they did not join the investigation. The learned Counsel therefore contended that this conduct of the Investigating Officer needs no further comments.
(viii) It is further contended that the semen swabs were not taken and further that the medical report does not support the prosecution case.
(ix) That there is no incriminating evidence in this case.
(x) It is also contended that PW.1 Muhammad Aslam conceded that his sister Nusrat Bibi had developed illicit relations with Jaffar accused. If this was the case the question of abduction did not arise.
(xi)It is next contended that the alleged abductee PW.2 never stated that she was taken to District Bahawalnagar where the accused reside. It is further contended that her appearance in yet another district in. Nankana, Sahib before the Magistrate is again shrouded in mystery. From there it is alleged that the complainant party managed to get an order for her transference to Dar-ul- Aman in order to "prove" the case.
(xii) Learned Counsel then drew our attention to the fact that the victim allegedly stated that she was kept in Syedwala and village Nahraan Khichian but no one from these villages appeared to corroborate her allegation. Moreover the police officers did not believe this part of story and hence it was contended that since her place of detention had not been determined, therefore, the question of abduction was no more relevant.
(xiii) Learned Counsel then referred Ex,DO which is a copy of the suit of dissolution of marriage filed by victim Nusrat Bibi against Khizar Hayat. This suit was allegedly filed on 30.07.1996. The learned Counsel maintained that the alleged abductee is not "innocent" and she is fully conversant with the Court proceedings. Such a woman should not be believed, it was urged.
9. Learned Counsel for the complainant on the other hand has raised the following points:--
(i) That the contention of appellant that they challenged the discharge report of the Magistrate before the High Court is wrong because the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is dated 28.10-.1996 and it was because of this that the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court had ordered an inquiry which is still pending. No such order had in fact been passed by the learned Magistrate and order had been forged which is still the subject-matter of inquiry. In this connection it is further' stated that the order Ex.DL dated 28.10.1996 was manipulated by the accused.
(ii)That PW.1 Muhammad Aslam, PW.2 Nusrat Bibi victim, PW.3 Noor Ahmed,. PW.4 Muhammad Sadiq and PW.3 Muhammad supported the basic version on the question of abduction.
(iii)That except Muhammad Aslam PW.1 no other witness is related to Mst. Nusrat Bibi PW.2.
(iv)That it as is evident from Ex.PD that one Muhammad Hussain filed an application before the Illaqa Magistrate wherein it was stated that he found Nusrat Bibi crying at. Pull Piplan where she had been abandoned by some accused and on the request of Nusrat Bibi she was produced before the Magistrate.
(v)That the statement of Nusrat Bibi dated 20.05.1996, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, categorically mentions names of all the accused. However on going through the record it transpires that though this was the first information lodged by the victim about the occurrence, she did not mention name of any person who was present at the time of occurrence except her brother Muhammad Aslam PW. 1 (vi)That the lady doctor Najma Parveen PW.8 categorically stated that the victim was having twelve weeks pregnancy. This point was never challenged in the cross-examination.
(vii) That the presence of witnesses at the place where abduction took place was never challenged by accused which means that there presence of witnesses at the spot was accepted. It is also contended that the defence has not been able to proveagainst the complainant or any other witness.
(viii) That the defence of the accused is given in reply to the Question No. 9 in the statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a special plea which had not been proved. No formal witness appeared in support of the defence. Learned Counsel urged that the trial Court found no truth in the defence taken by the accused. Learned Counsel relied upon the case of Yara Versus The State NLR 2005 Criminal 543 to urge that when a specific defence plea is taken by an accused, burden to prove the same shifts upon the accused. In case of failure of proof ... accused merits being convicted.
10. Learned. Counsel for the complainant urged that the grounds for acquittal of six respondents are based upon conjectures and since the evidence against all the respondents is available on record, therefore, they ought to have been convicted and sentenced according to law.
11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted as under:--
(i) That the conduct of PW.1 Muhammad Aslam shows that he is not truthful witness because had he been there at the alleged place of occurrence he would have gone to police and not gone home to purposely delay reporting the incident to the police.
(ii) That Muhammad Abbas, who reportedly informed the complainant about the ailment of his sister Mst. Meraj Bibi, was not produced in the Court. This shows that this entire story is false.
(iii) Lastly that the onus was illegally shifted by the learned trial Court upon the accused which is not permissible under the law.
12. The learned DPG appearing on behalf of the State urged as under:-- (i)That the complainant PW.1 was an eye-witness of the occurrence; (ii)That on the question of zina the statement of the abductee is available on the record;
(iii) That the statement of the victim was not shaken in cross-examination; and lastly
(iv) That the accused failed to establish his defence, therefore, his conviction was justified. THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
13. The reasons that prevailed upon the learned trial Court to return a verdict of guilt may be summarized as under:--
(i) After tracing the history of cancellation report allegedly prepared by police and the attending litigation up to the High Court the learned trial Court in Paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment found that the report ''had been got prepared by some unconcerned persons while it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court, Lahore that it seems to be manipulated". This finding was given because the question had arisen whether Ex.PE, Ex.PE/1, Ex.PE/2 etc; alleged to be documents relating to the cancellation of FIR were genuine or manipulated.
(ii)That the evidence of abduction provided by Noor Ahmed PW.3 and Muhammad Sadiq PW.4 corroborates the version given by Muhammad Aslam PW. 1 and the victim PW.2.
(iii)That the commission of offence of zina gets support from medical evidence as also from the fact that the victim was pregnant. She had been with the accused from 20.01.996 to 20.05.1996 when she managed her escape. However the learned trial Court did not believe that she was recovered from the appellant.
(iv)The learned trial Court however in Paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment observed as follows:-- "No doubt that the prosecution has not prove its case itself but I am agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that when specific defence plea had been taken by the defence, the onus shifts upon the defence to prove the same. I am of the opinion that the defence plea is not justified and plausible and I disbelieve the same, however, this fact appeals to prudent mind that the accused namely Abbas, Lal, Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Nabi, Hanif and Saeed Ali might have been involved in this case due to close relationship with Jafar accused so that no one can conduct pairvi of the case registered against Jafar accused." FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
14. The conviction recorded under Section 11 of Ordinance, VII of 1979 cannot be maintained for the reason that according to the prosecution evidence itself the accused had developed illicit relations with Mst. Nusrat Bibi PW.2 and the accused was a regular visitor of the house. There is no supporting evidence to corroborate the claim that she was kept at two places for a period of 3 1/2 months. The story of her rescue by unknown persons does not inspire confidence because Muhammad Hussain, who allegedly took her to the Magistrate Nankana Sahib, immediately after her rescue, never appeared at the trial to substantiate the circumstances of her recovery and consequent .statement. The only witness on this part of the story is PW.5 who admits that he "never appeared before the police." He also stated that we took the lady to our house to make consultation with the elders." Evidence of a person at the trial whose statement is not recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always viewed with suspicious.
15.It is certainly a case of elopement. Mst. Nusrat Bibi had been divorced twice apparently because she was barren. She had cooked up the story of 12 weeks pregnancy. This fact was not verified by scientific methods. She stated that confirmation of pregnancy would be possible "by ultrasound examination". The prosecution did not risk ultrasound test.
16.PW.3 Noor Ahmed deposed about the abduction of Mst. Nusrat Bibi but he was successfully confronted by defence with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure on crucial points. Mst. Nusrat Bibi was allegedly abducted from District Faisalabad. The accused belongs to District Bahawalnagar, while she was allegedly rescued in District Sheikhupura by unknown persons. Movement of Mst. Nusrat and appellant in various places negates the element of abduction. The story relating to Daral Aman has also not been proved. No one from Darul Aman appeared at the trial to verify that the abductee remained in Darul Aman. Even the learned Magistrate who recorded the statement of Mst. Nusrat Bibi allegedly after her recovery did not appear at the trial. It supports the elopement factor. Learned trial Court also did not find the appellant guilty of committing Zina-bil-Jabr. Learned trial judge concluded his findings by stating that "Admittedly there is no eye-witness of the offence of commission of Zina but the statement of the victim PW.2 gets ample support from medical evidence."
17. The element of cancellation of the crime report is not relevant for our discussion. We are told that the matter is being enquired into. Be that as it may we have, for the purposes of the Criminal Appeal and Revision, to examine whether the role attributed to the appellant Jaffar Hussain is covered by the mischief of Sections 10(3) and 11 of Ordinance, VII of 1979. The ingredients of abduction and Zinabil-Jabr are not proved to our satisfaction. However we are convinced that it was a case where Mst. Nusrat Bibi had run away. Serious doubts surround the prosecution story.
18. In view of what has been stated above the convictions and sentences recorded under Sections 10(3) and 11 of Ordinance, VII of 1979 are set aside. As a result thereof the appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case as announced today by way of our short order. Criminal Appeal No. 162/L of 2007 against the acquittal is dismissed as no case has been made out to dispel the double presumption of innocence of respondents who had been acquitted by learned trial Court.