' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, C. J.-The appellant was convicted on 5th February, 1985 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, under section 10 (3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance (VII of 1,979) and sentenced to 25 years' Rd., with whipping to 20 stripes. He was further convicted under section 323 P. P. C. And sentenced to one year's R. I., with a fine of Rs, 1,000. In default of fine he was to suffer 3 months' R. I., further.
2. The occurrence took place on the 21st of February, 1984 in the area of village Sundral Tehsil, Khushab at about Peshiwela. Mst. Manzoor. Fatima, P. W. 1 reported to Ghulam Abbas Shah, A. S. I, P.
W. 6 that while she was going on her way to Talukar, the appellant surprised her, caught hold of her and took her forcibly, on the point of dagger, to nearby sugar-cane field. There he took off her Shalwar and raped her. The F. I. R. Was registered at 8.20 P. M. On the same date.
3, The Police also medically examined the prosecutrix on the same day. The lady doctor Shamim Barlas, P. W. 3 observed that her hymen was torn with multiple old tears. The vagina was loose and patulous. Labia majora was black and loose. Labia minora was black and loose. Breasts were pendulous. There were multiple marks of violence on the body. She also noted a few contused wounds on various parts of her body. Two vaginal swabs were also taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. She found all the injuries as simple, caused with blunt weapon. Within the duration of six hours. The Police then challaned the case.
4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. Mst. Manzoor Fatima, P. W. 1 supported her version given in the F. I. R. Doctor Muhammad Riaz Ali, P. W, 2 deposed that -he on examining the appellant found him potent and capable to commit sexual intercourse. Lady Doctor Shamim Barlas appeared as P. W.
3. Her general observations have been given above. The details of the four contused wounds found by her on the person of the prosecutrix given as under :- "(1) A contused wound 1" x 3/4" x 1/4" on the left side of forehead.
(2) A contused wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the outer side of left forearm.
(3) A contusion mark 1' x 1" on the right index finger at its terminal part.
(4) A contusion 1/3" x 1/4" on the right thumb."
5. Muhammad Hussain, P. W. 4 and Muhammad Yousuf, P. W. 5 (brother of the prosecutrix) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They were attracted to the spot by the hue and cry of the prosecutrix. They went into the sugar-cane field and found the appellant committing sexual intercourse. On seeing them the appellant ran away, after picking up his Shalwar and the dagger.
Ghulam Abbas Shah, A. S. I., who investigated the case appeared as P. W.
6.
6. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C denied his involvement in the offence.
In answer to question as to why the case against him he answered it was due to enmity. He gave further explanation in answer to question No, 7 as under :- "I am innocent. Because I was personal servant of Sarfraz deceased and the complainant party was under the influence of Muhammad Hayat Chairman who was opponent of Sarfraz. Therefore, I was falsely involved in this case. I had moreover fought with the husband of Mst. Manzoor Fatima."
He however, produced no defence evidencs. The trial Court relied on the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated' above.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the Police failed.To produce any plan prepared by the Patwari, which was the requirement under the Police Rules and as there was no reliable evidence to show that a sugar-cane field existed at the spot, the entire prosecution case must fail. He further stated that the statement of the prosecutrix is contradicted by the medical evidence particularly with regard to the blows being given by a dagger. He has referred to the medical evidence to show that all the injuries found on her person were contused wounds and not a single injury was of a sharp-edged or a pointed weapon. He further relied on the word `dragging' used in the English version of the statement of Mst. Manzoor Fatima and stated that as no injury relevant to that act had been found on her person, she was not to be believed with regard to the rest of the evidence also.
8. We have gone through the entire evidence with the help of the learned counsel but find no merit in the appeal. Undoubtedly, no plan had been prepared by the Patwari, but a plan Exh. P. F.
Prepared by the Investigating Officer has been placed on the record. It shows the presence of the sugar-cane field at the spot. The Investigating Officer himself also stated that the sugar-cane field existed there. The two eye-witnesses Muhammad Hussain, P. W. 4 and Muhammad Yousaf, P. W. 5 who had not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge, with regard to seeing commission of Zina, also stated that the sugar-cane field was there. The case of the prosecutrix was that she was taken into the sugar-cane field. In this view of the matter, we are not persuaded to say that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of sugar-cane field at the spot, where the occurrence took place.
9. The learned counsel then submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner cannot be relied on in this case. It is argued that Mst. Manzoor Fatima, was admittedly, a married woman. The vaginal swa bs taken by the lady doctor could show presence of semen injected even by her own husband weeks back. He further stated that there is nothing to show that the same swabs were delivered intact to the Chemical Examiner. The contention of the learned counsel has much force but nothing will turn on that as despite the omission on the part of the prosecution to prove the presence of semen on the vaginal swabs, the case stands proved on the record. It is to be noticed that Mst. Manzoor Fatima is a married woman. C She according to her, was subjected to rape in the day time. The multiple marks of violence on her body, were found by the doctor and they corroborate her version. She never stated that the injuries of dagger were given to her from the point or sharp side. The Urdu version of h4 statement has nothing equivalent to dragging.
Obviously some error of translation crept in. The evidence of P. W. 4 and P. W. 5, to the extent that they saw the appellant running out of the sugar-cane field also renders limited support. They were then told the whole story by the prosecutrix. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P.
C. Stated that he had been involved due to enmity. There was, however, no such suggestion put either to the prosecutrix or her brother, P. W.
5. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecutrix would falsely involve the appellant in such a case. On the other hand, it is not possible to say that if there were D two factions in the village, a servant of one would advance the honour of his sister to take revenge of his master from a servant of the other. In this view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. There is thus no defect in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal of the appellant, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.