SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca in case FIR No.587 of 2014, dated 24.10.2014, registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran in respect of offences under sections 376 and 363 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 convicted Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) and sentenced him as infra:- Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh: 1) Imprisonment for life under section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs.200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo, simple Imprisonment of two years further.
2) Imprisonment for life under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs.200, 000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, the, convict was directed to undergo simple Imprisonment of two years further.
The convict was extended benefit available under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the learned trial court. Both the sentences awarded to the convict were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court.
2. Feeling aggrieved, Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) lodged the instant Criminal Appeal No.576-J-LD of 2017 assailing his conviction and sentence.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), the victim of the case, in her statement before the learned trial court, are as under:- "On 23.10.2014 at about 8:00 AM I was going to school when I reached near Nagina Cinema accused Allah Wadhaya armed with pistol with an unknown person came and took me forcibly to an unknown place on motorcycle. After some time that unknown person alighted from motorcycle.
Accused Allah Wadhaya forcibly committed rape with me. After four days I escaped from that unknown place and came to my home. My parents took me to P.S and then to Hospital. My statement was recorded in P.S. My medical examination was got conducted."
4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the accused was sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 04.02.2015 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and the learned trial court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got recorded statements of as many as nine witnesses. Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), the prosecutrix narrated the facts of the occurrence.
Muhammad Murad (PW-1) stated that on 24.10.2014, he submitted the written application (Exh.PA) for the registration of the case in respect of abduction of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2). Zafar Iqbal (PW- 3) stated that on 23.10.2014, he had witnessed the appellant abducting Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2).
Abdul Hameed, SI (PW-9) investigated the case from 24.10.2014 till 01.11.2014, arrested the appellant on 29.10.2014 and detailed the facts discovered during the investigation of the case in his statement before the learned trial court.6.
6.The prosecution also got Dr. Mumtaz Kamal (PW-4) examined, who on 27.10.2014 was, posted as a Woman Medical Officer at THQ hospital Kehror Pacca and on the same day, conducted the medical examination of the victim namely Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2). Dr. Mumtaz Kamal (PW-4), after examining Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), observed as under:- "Local examination.
Locally found blackish flaps of labia admit two fingers loose. minora and vagina .............
Opinion.
My opinion is that there was penetration occurred completely. Those swabs do not match with the findings of local examination. After medical examination I issued MLC the carbon copy of which is Ex.PD that is in my hand and bear my signature. I also attested injury statement of Ex.PD/1."
The prosecution also got Dr. Ihsan Ali (PW-5) examined who stated that he had examined the appellant on 01.11.2014 and found him capable of having sexual intercourse.
7. On 25.04.2016, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PJ) and other documents (Exh.PK and Exh.PL).On 26.05.2016, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence after tendering, in evidence the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PM)
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh, under section 342, Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you, he stated that he had been falsely involved in the case. The appellant opted to get himself examined under section 340(2), Cr.P.C and did not adduce any evidence in his defence.
9. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant precisely was that with regard to the abduction of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), there was not sufficient evidence, however, with regard to the conviction of the appellant under section 376(1), P.P.C., the learned counsel for the appellant sought a reduction in the quantum of imprisonment awarded to the appellant.
11. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further submitted that it was a heinous offence and exploited the victim's future by the appellant at the expense of his lust: that it could not be expected from the victim to put her future at stake for any reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case for nothing; that delay in reporting the matter to the police had no adverse effect on the fate of the prosecution case because in the cases where family honour was involved, immediate rushing to the police station for lodging the crime report and putting the honour at stake, was always difficult for anybody; that the medical evidence provided further corroboration to the Ocular account; that the impugned judgment entailing the conviction and sentence of the appellant did not warrant interference by this Court. Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General prayed for the rejection of the appeal.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial carefully.
13. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has not opted to assail the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant under section 376(1), P.P.C., still I have gone through the evidence on the record. This Court finds that the prosecution has undoubtedly established the charge of rape by producing relevant, admissible and dependable evidence during the course of the trial. The prosecution witness namely Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but her evidence relating to the fact of her being raped by the appellant has not been shaken at all. It is fully established by the statement of the prosecution witness namely Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) that the appellant raped her. The report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PM) according to which the DNA Profile of the appellant was found present on the shalwar of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) also lends support to the charge of rape against the appellant. The evidence of Dr. Mumtaz Kamal (PW-4) also fully supports the statement of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) that she was raped by the appellant. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.
However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his Deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited but not otherwise. In the instant case, this Court finds that the prosecution witness namely Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) has successfully evidenced her credibility, therefore, the learned trial court was quite justified to rely on her while finding the appellant guilty.
The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under section 376, P.P.C.
Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 376(1), P.P.C.
14. With regard to the conviction of the appellant under section 365-B, P.P.C., this Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the said charge against the appellant. The learned trial court itself rejected the statement of the prosecution witness namely Zafar Iqbal (PW- 3) who had stated that on 23.10.2014 at about 08.00 am he had seen the appellant abducting Mst.
Maria Murad (PW-2). According to the statement of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), when she was abducted by the appellant, Zafar Iqbal (PW-3) was not present at the said time, at the said place.
Furthermore, Zafar lqbal (PW-3), though being very closely related to Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2), made no effort either to fail the abduction or Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) or even to follow the appellant who was taking away Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) with him. None from the locality supported the said charge of abduction levelled against the appellant. The learned trial court also observed that Muhammad Murad (PW-1) was not a witness of the said abduction. With regard to the part of the statement of Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) that she was abducted by the appellant, the same is doubtful as is contradictory to the attending circumstances. Therefore, this Court has arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence made punishable under section 365-B, P.P.C.
15. For what has been discussed above, this Court has come to an irresistible and clear conclusion the prosecution has proved beyond any shadow of doubt, through inspiring and truthful evidence, that the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh raped Mst. Maria Murad (PW-2) .
In view of the conclusions drawn by this Court, the instant Criminal Appeal No. 5764-J/LD of 2017 as lodged by the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh for the offence made punishable under section 365-B, P.P.C. is set-aside, however, the conviction of the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh son of Muhammad Siddique under section 376(1), P.P.C. is upheld and maintained, however, I have observed that the appellant suffered the rigours of a protracted trial. I have also observed that it seems likely that the appellant would have mended, his conduct in these years. Learned counsel for the appellant on appellant's instructions, has earnestly and humbly prayed that the appellant may be given a chance to rehabilitate. The appellant was the sole earner in his Family and his incarceration for an extended period would result in cutting off the lifeline available to his family. There is no proof that the appellant is a man of means. As such, the case of the appellant calls for a lenient view in the matter of the quantum of sentence awarded to him under section 376(1), P.P.C. Reliance is placed on the cases of "Naseem Khan v. The State" (2021 SCMR 1771), "Mst. Sughran v. State (2021 SCMR 109) "Niaz ud din v. The State" (2007 SCMR 206), "Shaukat Ali alias Billa v. The State" (2015 SCMR 308) and "State through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi"
(PLD 2017 SC 671). Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh under section 376(1), P.P.C. but taking into consideration the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant namely Allah Wadhaya son of Ahmad Bakhsh under section 376(1), P.P.C. is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment of ten years. The punishment of payment of fine of Rs.200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo simple Imprisonment of two years further awarded to the appellant is upheld and maintained.