' This revision petition has been filed challenging the correctness of order, dated 16th February, 1981 passed by a Magistrate Section 30 (Judicial), acquitting Khurshid, Muhammad Afzal, Shaukat and Mst. Anwar, respondents, from the charges under section 363/366, P. P. C. And Liaqat, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Yaqoob, respondents under section 376, P-P. C. Framed against them.
2. Bashir Ahmad, complainant in this case, has three daughters, namely, Mst. Nasreen, Mst. Shamim and Mst. Azra Perveen from his wife Mst. Rashidan. Mst. Nasreen is married to Ghulam Bari.
Muhammad Yaqoob and Khurshid, respondents, are real brothers of said Ghulam Bari while Mst.
Anwar, respondent, is wife of the aforesaid Khurshid. Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Akram, Liaqat and Shaukat, respondents, are stated to be related inter se but are not connected with the other respondents.
3. The F. I. R. Exh. P. C. In this case was recorded by S. I. Muhammad Din at the instance of Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 4) regarding the abduction of his two daughters, namely, Mst. Shamim (P. W. 1) and Mst. Azra Perveen (P. W. 2) by the respondents on 19th October, 1977.
4. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Afzal, respondent, a Police Constable, cultivated illicit connections with Mst. Rashidan wife of Bashir Ahmad, complainant. Some 4 months before the occurrence, Muhammad Afzal had enticed her away but the Martial Law Authorities got her restored to the complainant. Some days later, Khurshid, respondent, solicited the hand of Mst. Azra Perveen for his brother Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent, from the complainant, who refused the same. Thereafter, Ghulam Bari son-in-law of Bashir Ahmad, complainant, took both Mst. Shamim and Mst. Azra Peneen P. Ws. To his Chak so that they might see their sister Mst. Nasreen (P. W. 4).
Bashir Ahmad, complainant, few days later went to the house of Ghulam Bari for bringing his daughters back. On 19th October, 1977 the complainant and his daughters Mst. Azra and Mst.
Shamim came out in the street for going to their house but the girls were snatched from him by Khurshid, Muhammad Afzal, Shaukat and Mst. Anwar, respondents. Bashir Ahmad went and lodged the report on the above facts at Police Station Dera Nawab Sahib vide, F. I. R. Exh. P. C. It appears that during the investigation both the abductees were recovered and produced before a Magistrate, at Ahmedpur East on 27th October, 1977 when recorded their statements .Under section 164, Cr. P. C. Mst. Shamim averred in that statement that they were not abducted by anybody and levelled serious allegations against her father (the complainant). Some four months later i. t. On 13th April, 1978 both the girls were again produced before a Magistrate for recording this fresh statements. This time, also Mst. Azra stuck to her previous stand and stated that her mother had married her to Muhammad Yaqoob son of her father's sister. Mst. Shamim however, levelled allegation of rape against Liaqat and Akram, respondents. Both Mst. Shamim and Mst. Azra were got medically examined by Lady Dr. Mrs. Tanweer Fatima (P. W. 5) on 11th April, 1978 who found them quite of age and used to sexual intercourse. After completing the usual Investigation the case was challaned.
5. The trial of the case proceeded at snail's pace, i. e., in 4 years only five witnesses, namely, Mst.
Shamim (P. W. 1), Mst. Azra Perveen (P. W. 2), both abductees, their sister Mst. Nasreen (P. W. 3) and their father Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 4) and Lady Dr. Mrs. Tanweer Fatima (P. W. 5) could be examined.
The respondents at the close of evidence in their statements under section 342, Cr. P. C.. Denied the allegations.
6. Learned trial Court having found the evidence on record as interested, discrepant and not worthy of credence being full of doubts consequently acquitted all the respondents. This finding has been challenged in the instant revision petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents and also gone through the record with their assistance.
8. It may be stated at the outset that there is no medical evidence on record to show that the abductees were minor at the time of occurrence. According to Lady Doctor Mrs. Tanweer Fatima, both the girls had more than 4 feet height and about 90 pounds weight each. They were not virgin and no marks of violence were seen on their persons.
9. The most important witnesses in this case are the abductees themselves. Mst. Shamim P. W.
Stated that she was living with her parents at Bahawalpur. Her father and mother used to quarrel.
Muhammad Afzal, respondent, was their regular visitor who cultivated illicit relations with her mother Mst. Rashida Bibi. One day, her mother took them in her company and went with Muhammad Afzal to his Chak No, 46/D. N. B. Where they lived for 5/6 days. In that Chak their sister Mst. Nasreen also lived. Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Yaqoob, respondents, committed rape with her in the house of Khurshid. Her father came there to take them back but her mother and Muhammad Afzal respondent refused. A scuffle took place between her father on one side and Khurshid, Muhammad Afzal, Shaukat and Mst. Anwar on the other and they were not allowed to go.
However, the police recovered them 2/3 days later and produced them in a Court on the following day after their medical examination. She admitted to have stated in Exh. D. A. That she was not abducted by anybody, but explained that this she stated under pressure. She conceded that the Magistrate had told her to make any statement she liked. She also admitted that when she appeared for the second time before the Magistrate she did not tell that her earlier statement was extorted under duress.
10. Mst. Azra Perveen (P. W. 2) also spoke in the same strain. She also admitted to have appeared before a Magistrate and stated that her father wanted to sell her away but explained that it was stated under pressure. Her statement Exh. D. B. Was read out to her in open Court which she owned with certain reservations.
11. Mst. Nasreen (P. W. 3) sister of the abductees stated that she had strained relations with Khurshid, respondent, who is her husband's brother because he had got a case registered against her father under section 458/366/3681148/149, P. P. C. She has not stated that her sisters were .Raped by any of the respondents, although the occurrence had allegedly taken place in the village where she lived with her husband.
12. Reading between the lines the evidence shows that the complainant's wife Mst. Rashidan was a lady of easy virtue who had immoral connections with Muhammad Afzal. It was she who took her daughters alongwith her and went to live with Muhammad Afzal, respondent, and married Mst.
Azra Perveen to Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent. It has been admitted by Mst. Azra Perveen even in her two statements recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. At different occasions. Likewise Mst.
Shamim in her earlier statement recorded on 27th October, 1977 immediately afte her recovery did not level allegation of rape against any of the respondents. In her subsequent statements she implicated Muhammad Akarm and Liaqat but it is not at all convincing as they stand in glaring contras with her earlier statement. It smacks of making deliberate improvements. It may be mentioned that the occurrence relates to the year 1977 when consent of an abductee was a good defence to the charges for abduction and rape. Admittedly, the two abductees were taken from the house of their father by their mother Mst. Rashidan. So the abduction charg against the respondents could not stand. Again it is in evidence tha both the girls lived with their mother in the house of Khurshid, respondent, who is admittedly son of the sister of Bashir Ahmad, complainant. It is not probable that the girls were raped forcibly without there being any protest by their mother. It is significant that she has not come forward to support such a charge. Mst. Azra Perveen has twice stated in her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C., that she was married to Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent. In the circumstances, I find that these witnesses have been making different statements from time to time, sometimes, absolving the respondents and some time implicating them and, therefore; their testimony could hardly provide safe and sufficient basis for their conviction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf rof the petitioner has failed to show if the view taken by learned trial Court on the available material was perverse and unreasonable. On re- appraisal of the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution witnesses have shady character who seemad to be having no regard for truth. I am, therefore, satisfied that impugned order of acquittal does not offend against any provision of law or principle enunciated by the superior Courts, hence calls for no interference.
13. In result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.