MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. Muhammad Abdullah (appellant alongwith his co-accused Ghulam Nabi, Saifullah and Mst. Rashida Bibi was indicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, -District Okara, to face trial in case F.I.R. No, 753 of 2008, dated 28.08.2008 offence under Sections 365-B, 376 and 511, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Haveli Lakha, District Okara. On conclusion of trial, he was convicted under Section 376, P.P.C. and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. with fine of Rs, 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he had to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Benefit of Son 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him. Co-accused of the appellant namely Ghulam Nabi, Saifullah and Mst. Rashida Bibi were, however , acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Challenging his conviction and sentence the appellant preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1384 of 2010 which was heard alongwith Crl. Revision No. 1294 of 2010 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence of the convict. vide impugned judgment, both the appeal as well as the revision were dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Feeling dissatisfied with the verdict of the learned Appellate Court Muhammad Abdullah convict filed Crl. Petition No, 651-L of 2012 wherein leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 1 1.12.2012 for reappraisal of evidence. Hence this appeal.
2. The facts of the case as divulged from the contents of F.I.R. (Exh.P A) registered on the application of Muhammad Shaban complainant (PW.2) are that in the intervening night of 27th and 28th of August, 2008, the complainant and his family members were sleeping in his house. At about 1.00 p.m., Muhammad Abdullah (appellant) and his co-accused Saifullah, Ghulam Nabi and Mst. Rashida Bibi (since acquitted) came to his house by scaling over the wall. They put hand kerchief containing suffocating material, on all the inmates, as a result whereof, the inmates became unconscious, whereafter , they abducted Mst. Samina Bibi (PW.1) and took her away .
The occurrence was witnessed by Kashif Aslam (PW.3) and Amjad Ali (PW since given up) who saw the appellant putting Mst. Samina Bibi in a car. It was further averred in the F.I.R. that appellant and his co-accused had left a bottle containing some medicine, a handkerchief and a magazine of pistol at the house of the complainant.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AOR appearing on behalf of respondent No, 2 and learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab at length and have perused the available record with their assistance.
4. The occurrence in this case took place in the intervening night of 27th and 28th of August, 2008. No time of occurrence is disclosed in the F.I.R. The matter was reported to the Police on 28.08.2008 at 12:00 (noon) and as such there is a delay of more than eleven hours in reporting the matter to the Police whereas distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station as per relevant column of F.I.R. is just 1/4 kilometer . No explanation whatsoever was furnished by the complainant regarding this inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the Police which makes the prosecution story doubtful from its inception.
5. It is case of the complainant in the F.I.R. and Mst Samina Bibi (PW.1) as well as Muhammad Shahban complainant (PW.2) stated so while appearing before the learned Trial Court that some intoxicating material in a handkerchief was given to the inmates of the house including these two prosecution witnesses. The complainant was cross-examined on this aspect of the matter and he stated that he had not got himself medically examined after coming into senses nor had he taken any medicine for recovery purposes. He further stated that his family members also did not take any medicine after coming into senses. The episode does not end here; during his cross-examination the complainant stated that he had produced before the Investigating Officer, handkerchief, bottle containing medicine and magazine which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer through recovery memo. This assertion of the complainant was straightaway contradicted by Muhammad Zaman, S.I. while making statement as PW.4 who stated during his cross-examination that nothing had been presented before him by the complainant at the time when he visited the place of occurrence. He further stated that neither any handkerchief, nor any bottle of medicine was presented before him by the PWs at the time when he firstly visited the spot. Moreover , the vehicle whereby Mst. Samina Bibi was allegedly abducted was also not taken into possession during the course of investiga tion. Therefore, the prosecution story qua abduction of Alst. Samina Bibi could not be proved and perhaps for this reason the appellant was not convicted and sentenced for abducting list.
Samina Bibi and all the remaining co-accused of the appellant were acquitted by the learned Trial Court whose acquittal was not assailed any further either by the complainant or by the State.
6. Now we advert to the next limb of the prosecution case which contains allegation of rape with Mst. Samina Bibi victim by the appellant. Muhammad Abdullah (appellant) claimed to have contrac ted marriage with Mst. Samina Bibi victim. During his cross-examination the Investigating Officer (PW.4) stated that we had not made any probe with regard to the authenticity of nikahnama. In her cross-examination, Mst. Samina Bibi affirmatively responded to the suggestion that during the time the appellant kept her in his custody , she had not made any hue and cry. The allegation of rape was not fully supported by the medical evidence because Dr. Yasmeen Kausar , WMO who medically examined the victim stated while appearing before the learned Trial Court that there was no mark of violence on the person of Mst. Samina Bibi. She further stated that there was no sign or mark of violence on the private parts of Mst. Samina Bibi. She went on to state that no clothes of Mst Samina Bibi were produced before her. Report of the Serologist regarding grouping of the semen produced before the learned Trial Court was also in the negative. The doctor who medically examined the appellant regarding his potency to perform the act alleged against the appellant was also not produced during the trial. In the circumstances, we hold that the prosecution case against the appellant is not free from doubts.
7. For what has been discussed above, the instant criminal appeal is allowed and while extending benefit of doubt to the appellant his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court and maintained by the learned Appellate Court are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. As per the report received from concerned Superintendent Jail, the appellant Muhammad Abdullah was released on bail on 27.11.2013 after suspension of his sentence by the learned High Court. Therefore, his surety bonds are ordered to be discharged.