RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.---Through instant Criminal Appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C., the appellant Muhammad Imran has assailed the judgment dated 29-05-2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, Camp at Murree, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 376. P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs,1,00,000/- and in default to further undergo 6 months SI. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the appellant/accused.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR (Ex.PC) registered on the statement of Mst. Shugufta, (PW-6) is that she is resident of Dhoke Sarih Arra Dakhli Sanvio Murree. On 15-02-2008, she went to fetch water from spring for her house and reached at 3.00 pm on a katcha barren/path where appellant/accused Muhammad Imran and Hameed Raza (PO) appeared on her back, caught hold her, put her on ground and committed Zina with her turn by turn. They extended threats. If she disclosed this fact, they will murder her. Therefore, she remained mum due to her decency and under the threats of Hameed and Imran, accused. On 18-02-2008, when her brother Faisal Mehmood, PW.7, who worked at Al-Maida Hotel, Murree. Came at home and complainant disclosed the fact to her brother and Muhammad Abbas that the accused Hameed Raza (PO) and present appellant Imran committed Zina with her. She came along with her brother Faisal to report the matter to Police Station Ghora Gali. Hence, the FIR.
3. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses to bring home the guilt of appellant/accused, Mst. Shugufta PW.6, Faisal Mehmood, PW.7 furnished ocular account of the incident, Mazhar Hussain, SI/Investigating Officer appeared before the learned trial court as PW.8, who investigated the case in hand and stated about various steps taken during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence in this case was furnished by Dr. Sadia Naeem, PW.3. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are almost formal in nature.
4. The appellant Muhammad Imran was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations leveled against him. In reply to question, "why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you", he replied as under:- "As we belong to the Pakistan Peoples Party and the complainant family being to Muslim League N and we with our efforts make win on our polling station which the complainant family got measured the resulted in revenge lodged this false, factitious and baseless FIR. No independent witness had ever deposed against me. All the witnesses are police officials and one brother of complainant showing clearly their mala fide and under the deal with the police officials."
The accused neither opted to appear of his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced defence evidence in his favour. The Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The learned trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties passed the above said conviction and sentences, which is being impugned herein.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is absolutely an innocent person and has nothing to do with the alleged crime; that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case to the hilt as no reliable evidence could be produced; that the evidence came on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned trial court which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice; that version of Mst. Shugufta, PW.6/prosecutrix is vague, sketchy and contradictory evidence, which could not form basis of conviction and no sentence could have been awarded; that various glaring contradictions, dishonest omissions and exaggeration apparently are flouting on the unreliable statement of Mst. Shugufta/prosecutrix; that there is unexplained delay of 4/5 days in lodging the FIR, which point has not been considered by the trial court. According to him, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case as it shows that there was no mark of violence on any part of the body of the victim and even otherwise the medical examination on the victim took place after a noticeable delay. Finally, submitted that conviction and sentence is based on the sole statement of victim girl and there is no other independent evidence available against the appellant.
7. Conversely, learned DPG appearing for the State vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that heinous offence has been committed by the appellant and he deserves no leniency; that poor and helpless victim has no mala fide to forcibly implicate the appellant in such a heinous offence; that it is out of question that one would sacrify his honour and modesty just to achieve a goal of causing harm to his rival by implicating him in a false case. Finally, argued that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment may be maintained.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. In order to determine, whether the prosecution has established the guilt to the hilt? To answer the said question, I propose to weigh the prosecution evidence and defence version in the scales of justice, keeping in view the prescribed law and further keeping in view the contentions of both the sides in juxtaposition. The entire unfortunate incident revolves around poor and helpless victim Mg.
Shugufta. In her deposition, she has fully implicated the appellant in the commission of alleged crime. She stated that on 15-02-2008, she went to fetch water from spring for her house at 3.00 pm.
On Kacha Barren path where the accused Muhammad Imran, appellant and Hameed Raza (PO) emerged on her back, caught hold her and put her on ground and committed Zina turn by turn.
She further narrated that they extended threats that if she would disclose this fact they would murder her. She remained mum due to her decency and under the threats of the appellant and his co-accused. On 18-02-2008, when her brother Faisal Mehmood. PW.7. Who worked at Al-Maida Hotel, Murree came at home and complainant disclosed this fact to her brother. Although, she was subjected to lengthy cross examination but the defence could not extract anything favourable to the defence. Appellant claimed that he was involved in the case due to political rivalry but such stance of the appellant is beyond imagination. Firstly, it is beyond imagination that victim lady or his real brother would involve the accused due to enmity at the cost of her honour. It is incomprehensible that one would sacrify his honour to achieve a goal of causing harm to his opponent by implicating him in a frivolous case, secondly, the appellant miserably failed to prove that either Faisal Mehmood, PW.7 brother of the victim was a candidate himself or was a vocal supporter of any political party rather it is proved on record that said Faisal Mehmood was a poor man and was serving, as a labour, in a hotel at Murree.
10. Now dealing with the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that besides the statement of the victim (girl) prosecution could not furnish any other eye-witness to prove the charge against the appellant is concerned, it may be observed that sole testimony of victim is enough for conviction if the same is trustworthy, sure footed, irrefutable and confident inspiring.
Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant carries no weight for the reasons that "corroboration is not a rule of law but that of prudence". In the instant case, the statement of prosecutrix is well corroborated with the medical history brought on record by the prosecution in shape of Doctor Sadia Naeem, PW.3, who medically examined the victim Mst. Shugufta Bibi, PW.6 and prepared MLR Ex.PA. After receipt of report of Chemical Examiner. Ex.PA/1 finally opined that sexual assault has taken place with the victim.
11. The statement of the victim is straightforward and narrated the entire incident in a very innocent and natural manner and the defence failed to establish that there was any exaggeration in the statement of the said victim, in view of which her statement could not be made basis for conviction of the accused. In this view of the matter, no cogent and confidence inspiring reasons have been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant to justify inference in the impugned conviction.
12. The appeal has been examined on the touchstone of the Criminal Justice System as mentioned hereinabove, the statement of the victim is well corroborated by the statement of Faisal Memood, PW.7, Mazhar Hussain, SI, PW.8 as well as medical evidence and all this evidence cumulatively made the case in line for the purposes of conviction. I am also fortified by the judgment laid down in Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (PLD 1984 SC 218). In which it is observed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that in case of sexual intercourse marks of violence is not necessary to prove the factum of rape.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt as such appeal merits no consideration. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 29-05-2010 is upheld.