' The appellant was tried by M.S.30, Faisalabad, for having abducted and raped Mst. Bismillah Tanvir (P.W. 6), minor daughter of Muhammad Ibrahim, complainant (P.W.8), three months prior to the registration of case on 24th August, 1977. He was convicted by the trial Court vide order, dated 1st February, 1981 under section 363/376, P.P.C. He was sentenced to three years' R.I. Under section 363, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,1,000, or in default three months' R.I. Under section 376, he was sentenced to five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000, in default to undergo three months' R. I. Sentences under both the sections were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was on bail on the date of announcement of the judgment. He was taken into custody. Criminal Appeal No,109 of 1983 filed by the appellant was registered in the office on 28th February, 1983, on receipt through the Superintendent Jail. The appeal appears to have been drafted on 23rd February, 1983 and was forwarded by the Superintendent, Jail to the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 26th February, 1983.
The limitation to file an appeal to this Court is 60 days. The only stance of the appellant for having filed the appeal beyond limitation is that he had paid some money to some of his friends for filing an appeal, who had been informing him that the appeal had been filed and that it will come up for hearing in the near future. Neither the name of the friend is mentioned nor is there any affidavit. The appeal is barred by limitation for a period of 20 months and 20 days. No proper explanation for having filed the appeal so late has been furnished. Learned counsel for the State has cited Mian Nazar Farid Ahmad Khan Maneka v. Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan etc. PLD 1971 Lah.
1032. It has been held therein that no litigant has a vested right to come to Court beyond period of limitation prescribed by law.
2. Apart from the fact that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred, there is no merit otherwise also in the appeal. It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Mst. Bismillah Tanvir was minor, she was abducted by the appellant and was raped by him during the period he kept her in his illegal custody. Mst. Bismillah Tanvir herself had made categorical allegations of having been abducted by the appellant and having been raped by him. No case of enmity of the P.Ws. Against the appellant has been made out, so as to consider the evidence of the P.Ws. As biased one. The plea of the appellant that Mst. Bismillah was a girl of easy virtue does not advance the case of the appellant in any manner, for the reason that even if this is granted for the sake of argument, that would not give any licence to the appellant or anybody else for abducting her and raping her. Even otherwise, this plea does not find support from the record. The statement of one of the D.Ws. That the appellant is a gentleman and the statement of the other D.W. That Mst.Bismillah Tanvir was a girl of easy virtue is not confidence inspiring and is not enough to create any dent in the prosecution case. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
3. The appellant, however, is granted the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The period of his detention in Jail during trial shall be deducted from the sentence awarded to him.