1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner Muhammad Yusuf who has been convicted under section 10
(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-F (2-B) of the Constitution whereby his appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 21st of June, 1983.
2. ' Mst. Muradan (P. W. 1) had a daughter Mst. Bashiran (P. W. 2) aged 16/17 years. On the night of 19th of July, 1982 at about 8 or 9 p. m. When they came out of their house and were going out to ease themselves in the fields, the petitioner alongwith six others allegedly abducted Mst. Bashiran (P. W.
3. 2). A panchayat was arranged in which amongst others Saddar Din (P. W. 3), Mukha (P. W. 4) and Rustam (P. W. 5) participated and the petitioner and his associates promised to return Mst.
4. Bashiran after three days. In fact she was returned after three days but during the period that she was kept by the petitioner and his associates she was subjected to zina-bil-jabr time and again.
5. The efforts of Mst. Muradan to lodge a report with the police did not succeed. Hence on 5th of August 1982 she filed a complaint against the petitioner and six others under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. After holding preliminary inquiry the Sessions Judge summoned the petitioner and four others for trial. Mst. Bashiran (P. W. 2) was medically examined on 25th of August, 1982, that is, after over a month of her abduction and zina- bil-jabr. The Lady Doctor Farhat Athar (P. W. 6) found no mark of injury on her body but was of the opinion on internal examination that she was a habitual case of sexual intercourse and the last coitus took place one month and eight days before she examined her. Two vaginal swabs were also taken but the report on it was not made available at the trial. The prosecution case was supported by Muradan (P. W. 1) and Bashiran (P. W. 2). The two eye-witnesses Jaafar and Manzoor were given up as being won over. Saddar Din (P. W. 3), Mukha (P. W. 4) and Rustam (P. W. 5) who had gone as a panchayat to the petitioner and his associates and obtained the return of Mst.
6. Bashiran also appeared at the trial. The petitioner and his associates all pleaded not guilty and explained the case against them by saying that Mst. Bashiran had been found committing Zina with one Abbas Paroka and the petitioner had asked the complainant Muradan apd her husband to look into the matter and the family had thereby become notorious in the village. To vindicate their position they had falsely implicated the petitioner and his other associates. The petitioner produced in defence two witnesses who stated about his innocence.
7. ' The trial Court found the statement of Mst. Bashiran to be convincing and rejected the contention that she had falsely implicated the petitioner on account of enmity over the discovery of her relations with Abbas. The Panchayat witnesses were also believed. The Court, however, held that it was more likely a case of Zina and not zina-bil-jabr for which the petitioner alone was responsible.
8. It disbelieved the proper identification of the other associates of the petitioner or their involvement in the crime and acquitted them. The petitioner was held guilty of the offence of Zina and convicted and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default one year rigorous imprisonment and 10 stripes. Out of the fine, if recovered, four thousand was to be paid to Mst. Bashiran.
9. ' On appeal the FederAl Shariat Court affirmed the findings and held that the offence of Zina was fully proved against the petitioner and he had been dealt with leniently by the trial Court. The conviction and sentence was maintained.
10. ' The learned 'counsel for the petitioner has challenged the testimony of Muradan (P. W. 1) and Bashiran (P. W. 2) on the ground that they had on old enmity which found mention in the very first paragraph of the complaint filed by her and that dispute may have prompted a false charge against the petitioner particularly when Mst. Bashiran was shown to be not of good character and was accustomed to sexual intercourse without being married. It has further been contended that substantial part of the prosecution case has been disbelieved in so far as six other alleged associates of the petitioners were either not summoned for trial or when tried the prosecution case was disbelieved in respect of them. In this background it may not be possible to divide the credibility of the witnesses in a manner and to the extent to arrive at the guilt of the petitioner alone. The evidence of recovery, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was itself doubtful as Mst. Bashiran had come to the house of her own and recovery at the instance of Panchayat had been clearly denied by Sultan Khan (D. W. 1) who, according to the prosecution case itself, participated in the panchayat. Much emphasis was laid on the defence put up by the petitioner and his associates that Mst. Bashiran was found committing Zina with Abbas and that discovery followed by notoriety prompted them to take such a revenge.
11. The questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate) mostly to reappraisal of evidence on facts. We find that in appraising the, evidence the two Courts have rested the case against the petitioner on the statement of Mst. Bashiran against whom they have found no reason for falsely implicating the petitioner and charging him for committing Zina with her. The evidence with regard to Panchayat has also been believed. The other associates of the petitioner were given benefit of doubt because their criminality and involvement was found not established beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find that in such appraisal of evidence on facts either any provision of law has been violated or any principle of law ignored. There is no question arising in the petition which may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.