This judgment will dispose of above captioned Criminal Appeal filed by Mush taq Ahmad appellant who was convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Renala Khurd, Distt. Okara in Sessions Complaint Case No. 27 of 2009 dated 02.1.2009 under Sections 376, PPC of P.S. Renala khurd titled Mst. Sheema Bibi vs. Mushtaq Ahmad vide impugned judgment dated 20-05-201 1 and sentenced infra: MUSHT AQ AHMAD Ten Years R.I u/S. 376, PPC.
The facts in brief as disclosed by complainant Mst. Sheema Bibi (PW-1) in complaint are that on 18.10.08 at about 9.00 AM, she was alone at home. Abrupt ly, appellant Mushtaq Ahmad while armed with 12 bore gun entered her house by scaling over the wall. Appellant clasped her when she was sitting in her room and bolted the door from inside. He torn her wearing apparels, doffed her Shalwar and committed rape forcibly with her. She offered resistance but could not be able to releas e herself from the clutches of appellant. On clamour , PWs namely Yousaf and Zakir came there who were already present in her house in order to meet her husband and witnessed the occurrence. She narrated whole story to her husband. She further stated that she also sustained injuries during scuffle. Thereafter she approached the local police for registration of case but due to influence of appellant she could not get the case registered. Then, she filed an application to Area Magistrate for her medical examination.
Thereafter , she filed petition for registratio n of the case before Sessions Judge, Okara so police on the direction of Court lodged case FIR No. 552/08 but local police due to influence of appellant cancelled heir case. Feeling dissatisfied/disagreed with the above situation, she filed the instant private complaint.
3. Learned trial Court vide order dated 28.4.2009 summoned the appellant and whereupon the appellant put his appearance before said Court.
4. Thereafter learned trial court after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, indicted the appellant to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thus, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in order to substantiate the charges.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 05 PWs in all.
Complainant Mst. Sheema Bibi vide ner statement dated 1.4.2001 by tendering in evidence attested copy of report of Chemical Examiner as Exh.PB closed her evidence.
6. Statement of the appellant was recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he negated the charges and professed his innocence. He did not opt to make statement on oath as required u/S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. However , opted to produce defence evidence and thereafter by produced certain documents Exh.DA to Exh.DE closed his defence evidence.
He in reply to a question "why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you"? replied infra: "All the PWs are inter se related. PW.2 Zakir Hussain who appeared before the Court against me is resident of Mauza Chucha which is situated at a distance of ten K.M. from the alleged place of occurrence. No independent PW of the vicinity/locality had supported the version of complainant as no such occurrence had taken place as alleged by the complainant. Infact Suleman, Abdul Rehman who are sons of his brother namely Shameer had filed a suit for specific performance against my mother Mst. Fatima Bibi which is still pending for adjudication in the Court of Mr. Tariq Saleem Chuhan civil Judge/MS-30 Renala Khurd. One application for partition of land was filed by Muhammad Abdullah, Abdul Jabar , Zainib Tahira who are also near relatives of Mst. Sheeman Bibi against Maqbool Hussain (my father) and etc. I got recorded my statement against the near relatives of Mst. Sheema Bibi due to above said reasons Mst. Sheema Bibi fabricated a false story against me just to compel me for compromise."
7. On the conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned op-cit by the learned trial Court.
Hence, instant appeal.
8. In support of appeal, learned counsel for appellant submits that occurrence took place on 18.10.2008 at about 9:00 AM whereas FIR was lodged on 17.12.2008 and the MLC of Mst. Sheema Bibi, the victim was carried out on 25.10.2008 in this way, it has been submi tted that MLC is delayed by seven days and FIR is delayed by about two months and about both the delay , no reasonable explication has been brought on record. Further submits that during investigation the police has found the case false and recommended for the discharge of the appellant as well cancellation of the case. Further submits that at belated stage on 02.01.2009, the complainant-Mst. Sheema Bibi, examined as PW.1 instituted instant private criminal complaint whereby PW.2 Zakir Hussain was examined as an eye-witness but in his statement, he has categorically admitted that he did not see the occurrence and was told by complainant that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant and now only the statement of Mst.
Sheema Bibi remains in field, the same has not been corroborated by the statement of lady doctor Shagufta Yasmeen PW.3 who when medically exam ined her on 25.10.2008 found hymen torn old and healed and she was running cycle of menstruation and no semen grouping in this case, in this way, she cannot be believed. So far as other PWs are concerned, it seems piddling to dilate upon them, otherwise would amount to sheer wastage of precious time of the Court and has thus craved for acquittal of the appellant. Lastly , it has been submitted that prosecutrix Mst. Sheema Bibi PW.1 is present before Court. She has no objection on the acceptance of instant appeal; therefore, this fact may also be taken into consideration.
9. Learned DPG has opposed the submissions tooth and nail.
10. Heard. Record perused. .
11. Occurrence took place on 18.10. 2008 at about 9.00 AM, her medical examination was conducted on 25.10.2008 by the delay of seven days and thereafter on 17.12.2008 FIR was lodged with the procrastination of about two months, in this way, it is concluded that matter was reported to the police at belated stage and so far as its A, exegeses are concerned, no doubt, it has been found available on record that she moved an application u/S. 22-A Cr.P.C. for getting the case registered but no perspicuity has been given by the complainant as to why her medical examination was conducted after seven days of the happening of the incident. Another aspect which goes to the root of the case is processual investigation is expressive to the falsity of the case. After about half month of the registration of the case, she filed insta nt private complaint and she was examined as PW.1 being victim, PW.2 Zakir Hussain was examined claiming to have seen the incident but in his examination in chief, he did not state that he saw incident of commission of Zina, therefore, his evidence cannot support statement of the victim. So far as statement of the victim is concerned, as it has been discussed herein above that her statement has not been corroborated by medical evidence. Moreover , Mst. Sheema Bibi, the victim/prosecutrix is present before Court and has shown no objection on the acceptance of instant appeal. On merits, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and more so. Mst. Sheema Bibi has no objection on the acceptance of this appeal.
12. For what has been discussed above, instant appeal is allowed. Resultantly , impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt. He is reported to be in jail, directed to be set at liberty , in a statim, if not required in any other case.