The petitioner, who is a Pipe Fitter in the M. E. S. Has been sentenced to three months' R. I. Under M. L.
R. No. 3.
2. The allegation as levelled in the charge is that on 18th May, 1978 at about 1-45 p. m. While repairing a water pipe at the bungalow of the complainant situated at Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi he tried to molest the modesty of the wife of Col. M. A. Tirmizi.
3. According to the wife of the complainant, the accused came to check the water-tape of her bath-room on 17th May, 1978 as the same was out of order. While he was doing the job he asked for a glass of water. She at this started going towards the bath-room. The accused pushed her inside.
She at this closed the door from inside. According to her, the petitioner asked her to open the door but she refused to do so. She informed her husband but he did not take any notice of that. She has stated that on the next day i. e. 18th May, 1978, the accused, petitioner, visited her bungalow in order to check a tap which had been fitted by him in the bath-room. She asked her Orderly to send the accused away as she did not want him to visit her house, but he went into the dressing Room adjacent to the bed-room, and called her. Since some jewellery had been kept by her in the dressing room, therefore, she went in that room to see that no article was taken away by him. At this the accused caught hold of her hands and pushed her towards him. At this she shouted, the Orderly entered the room and held the accused till her husband arrived.
4. While making his statement in defence the petitioner has stated that since he refused to close the valve of the water supply going towards the house of Col. Dawood, adjacent to the house of the complainant, therefore, the complainant got annoyed and involved him in a false case. He, however, admitted that on 18th May, 1978 he went to the house of the complainant on the basis of the report lodged by him, According to him he fitted a direct pipe to the bath-room from the outer tap, but he denied the allegation levelled against him by the wife of the complai--nant. On being asked by the Summary Military Court as to whether he could produce any document to show that some report was lodged by the complainant or his wife for effecting repairs in the bath-room on 17th or 18th of May, 1978, he stated that so far as the date 17th May, 1978 was concerned, he went to the house on the verbal direction of the Office Superintendent while with regard to the date 18th May, 1978 he stated that he received a chit to visit the house but the same had been left by him at his residence.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client has been involved in the present case falsely, and has not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
The defence plea does not appear to be plausible. Theca does not appear to be any reason as to why the wife of the complainant a Colonel, should involve the petitioner falsely in such a case which reflects upon her modesty. If at all a false case had to be cooked up then the peti--tioner could be involved in a theft matter. I have carefully checked, the entire record, particularly the evidence recorded by the Summary Military Court. There is sufficient material available on record to convict the petitioner.
6. There being no substance in the writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.