Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.--An application has been received from the learned counsel for the appellant seeking an adjournment on account of his preoccupation with the local bodies elections. The said application does not disclose as to whether the learned counsel for the appellant is himself a candidate in such elections or he is merely a supporter of some candidate. We have found the said application to be utterly unacceptable and, thus, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant for an adjournment is disallowed.
2. Zulfiqaruddin appellant was alleged to have committed a house trespass, abduction of Mst. Alia Bibi (PW-5), launching of murderous assault upon Mst. Haleema Bibi (PW-6) and committing rape with Mst. Alia Bibi (PW-5) and for commission of the said offences he was booked and tried in case FIR No. 101 registered at Police Station Bahtar , District Attock on 11.07.2009 for offences under Sections 452, 324, 337-A(i), 365-B, 376 and 34, PPC and after a full-dressed trial the trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 376, 365-B, 324, 452, 337-A(ii), 337-F(v) and 337-F(i), PPC and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment as well as a sentence of death on the charge under Section 376, PPC. At the time of hearing of the appell ant's appeal the High Court had found that the parties to this case had entered into a compromise which compromise was accepted by the High Court and all the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded for the offences which were compoundable were set aside and for the offences which were non-compoundable the sentences of the appellant were reduced.
Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 10.2.2015.
3. With the assistance of the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State we have gone through the memorandum of this appeal, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and the record of the case and have found that the crimina l case in hand had originated in the year 2009. The Appellant happens to be a cousin of the alleged victim of rape namely Mst. Alia Bibi (PW-5) besides being a nephew of the complainant namely Umer Ahsan (PW-4). The record shows that the appellant wanted to marry the alleged victim namely Mst.
Alia Bibi (PW-5) and upon refusal of that matrimonial proposal the appellant had allegedly committed the offences which are the subject matter of the presen t criminal case. During the pendency of the appellant's appeal before the High Court the complainant namely Umer Ahsan (PW-4) as well as the alleged victims namely Mst. Alia Bibi (PW-5) and Mat. Haleema Bibi (PW-6) had sworn affidavits maintaining therein that the present appellant had been implicated in the present criminal case on account of some misunderstanding, the appellant had not abducted anybody and the allegation of rape leveled against him was also a result of some misunderstanding. The complainant had personally appeared before the High Court at the time of hearing of the appellant's appeal and he had owned the affidavits sworn by him and the two victims. It is important to notice here that the said stand taken by the complainant and the alleged victims had been accepted by the High Court and resultantly the appellant had been acquitted of all the charges pertaining to the compoundable offences and his sentences vis-a-vis the non- compoundable offences were reduced by the High Court. We are of the opinion that if the High Court was minded to accept the affidavits sworn by the complainant and the alleged victims, in which affidavits it had been maintained that the allegations leveled against the appellant were factually incorrect, then instead of reducing the sentences of the appellant vis-a-vis the non-compoundable offences the High Court ought to have rejected the prosecution's case as a whole entailing acquittal of the appellant, but unfortunately that course was not adopted by the High Court.
4. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed, the outstanding convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitte d of the charge by extending the benefi t of doubt to him. The appellant shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.