Through the instant criminal appeal, the appellant/accused Anser Pervaiz son of Nazir Ahmad has impugned the judgment dated 10.10.2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karor, District Layyah has convicted the appellant under Section 354, PPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs, 5000/-, or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. has been extended to the appellant.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant Ghulam Ali (PW.4) in the complaint (Ex.PA/1) is that on 21.12.2004 at 8.30 a.m. his daughter Mst. Parveen, victim (PW.2), reached in Government Girls Primary School, Dera Langrial Chak No, 116-C/TDA. When she, being student of 2nd class, entered the class no other student or staff member of the school had reached there.
According to the complainant, house of Anser Pervaiz, appellant/accused was adjacent to the said Government Girls Primary School. On seeing the victim alone, the appellant/accused entered the school and caught hold of her breasts and also started teasing her. Meanwhile, Mst. Mehtab alias Mato Mai (PW.3) wife of the complainant reached the school to see her daughter. On hearing noise of the victim, the complainant's wife entered the class room and saw that the accused was putting his hands on the breasts of the victim. On her cries, the accused fled away by leaving the victim. In the meantime, Azizan Begum, Head Mistress and Haseena Mai 2nd Head Mistress reached the School. Wife of the complainant and the victim narrated the occurrence to them. According to the complainant, the accused party was beseeching for compromise but he did not agree and registered the present FIR for legal action against the appellant/ accused.
3. After completion of usual investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court for taking cognizance of the offence. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant/ accused on 25.3.2006 under Sections 18/10 of the Offence on Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Section 354, PPC. The appellant/accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in support of its case produced six PWs including the victim as well as her mother Mst. Mehtab Bibi and the complainant. There is no need to reproduce the gist of the statements of the witnesses of prosecution in this judgment as the same has been done by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2008. However, the relevant portions of the statements of the prosecution witnesses would be discussed and examined in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment.
5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. However, while responding to question "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" the appellant/ accused replied as under:-- "All the private PWs are relatives inter-se and other PWs are police officials due to which they deposed against me only on the asking of complainant. I am innocent and no occurrence had ever taken place. All the prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. Alleged victim of this case is also just like my daughter and I ever cannot think about like this occurrence. In fact I have some agricultural land near the school and house of complainant where wheat crop was sown in the days of occurrence. Animals i,e, cows, goats and hens of the complainant party use to graze in my agricultural land and damage my crop and due to this reason a quarrel always continues between me and complainant party. One day prior to this occurrence, animals of complainant party damaged my wheat crop and I had lodged complaint before father of alleged victim and humiliated him, upon which Ghulam Ali father of alleged victim also declared on that day that he is Kumhar by caste and he cannot tolerate and on the next day, this concocted story was managed and they implicated me in this case due to above said reason. Complainant is greedy person and due to this false case, he want to blackmail me for getting huge amount from me".
The appellant/accused neither opted to record his statement on oath as provided under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor intended to produce any evidence in his defence.
6. After conclusion of the trial and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of this judgment.
7. Ch. Imtiaz Ullah Khan Warraich, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR as the incident is said to have taken place on 21.12.2004 but the FIR was lodged on 11.01.2005 without any plausible cause and there is material contradictions in the statements of the victim as well as her mother.
8. I have minutely gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial court and the judgment passed thereon. The delay in lodging the FIR has been fully explained. The incident was immediately reported to PW. 5 Mst. Aziza Begum Headmistress of the school. She has deposed that on 21.1.12.2004 at about 8.45 a.m mother of the victim met her and Mst. Haseena 2nd Head Mistress at the school and weeping told that accused present in court had committed Chair Khani with her victim daughter Mst. Parveen Bibi. She has further deposed that being Headmistress of the school she sent written application to DEO Layyah on the next day and that police had also recorded her statement. Victim Mst. Parveen Bibi PW.2 has given full account of the incident by stating that the accused forcibly untied the string of her shalwar and tried to commit Zina-bil-jabr with her. On her hue and cry, her mother reached there and thereafter the accused ran away. She has also deposed that she and her mother had narrated the incident to Headmistress namely Mst. Aziza Begum and 2nd Head Mistress namely Mst. Haseena. She had also stated that they had gone to Police Station but the police refused to register the case and after lapse of 21 days they recorded her statement. The defence plea taken by the accused does not appeal to a prudent mind. He was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. There is no force in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment with payment of Rs, 5000/-, or in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. already extended to the appellant, shall remain intact. The appellant is on bail, he is taken into custody and remanded to jail to serve out remaining portion of his sentences.
9.With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
10.The above are the reasons of our short order of even date.