' Ghulab, Sher Muhammad and Ramzan petitioners were convicted under section 363, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For four years and a fine of Rs,500 or in default in payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For six months each. Sher Muhammad petitioner was further convicted under section 376, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For four years and a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For six months. His sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs,2,000 was ordered to be paid to Mst. Sarwar Bibi as compensation. Two co-accused, namely, Mst. Daulat Bibi and Ghulam Muhammad were, however, acquitted on the benefit of doubt. The convicts challenged their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Khushab on 15th November, 1982. They have come up in revision to question the correctness and prosperity of the aforesaid orders.
2. The prosecution story as can be gathered from the file of the trial Court is that Sher Muhammad petitioner was putting up in the house of Gama complainant. He was a keen aspirant for the hand of Mst. Sarwar Bibi, aged 12 years, daughter of the complainant. The complainant refused to oblige him and also turned him out of his house. Five or six days prior to 23-12-1977 acquitted accused Mst. Daulat Bibi took away Mst. Sarwar Bibi from her house and handed her over to the petitioners and acquitted accused Ghulam Muhammad. They took her to Sargodha in a bus and from there to Lyallpur. Ghulam Muhammad returned back from Lyallpur and the remaining accused started living there in a rented house. They lived there for 10/12 days. During this period Sheru petitioner had been committing rape with Mst. Sarwar Bibi. From Lyallpur they took the abductee to Chak No,96, from where she was recovered by a police party on 23-1-1978. Mst. Sarwar Bibi was medically examined by Woman Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital Attock. According to her, Mst. Sarwar Bibi was aged about 12 years and was used to sexual intercourse. There were no marks of violence on het out.y nor any marks of healed injuries.
3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. Sher Muhammad petitioner admitted that he was living in the house of Gama complainant.
He added that he was betrothed with Mst. Sarwar Bibi and when he asked the complainant to marry her with him, he turned him out. No evidence was led in defence.
4. I have gone through the record with the help of the learned State counsel. To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. Except Mst. Sarwar Bibi there is no other witness either of abduction or of rape. Gama complainant and Mst. Fateh Bibi mother of Mst. Sarwar Bibi, stated that they were informed by Ramzan and Muhammad Siddiq that they had seen the petitioners and acquitted accused taking away Mst. Sarwar Bibi. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Siddiq aforementioned were not examined as P.Ws. Mst. Sarwar Bibi gave a detailed account of her abduction and rape but her statement in so far as the charge of rape is concerned, does not inspire confidence. In examination-in-chief she stated that only Sheru petitioner had committed rape with her but in cross-examination she came up with the version that all the accused had been committing rape with her. Her statement about the allegation of rape was not accepted as against Gulab and Ramzan petitioners and it cannot form basis for conviction of Sheru petitioner under section 376, P.P.C. His conviction and sentence under section 376, P.P.C. Is, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted of this charge.
5 So far as the allegation of abduction is concerned, the statement of Mst. Sarwar Bibi finds support from the statement of the Investigating Officer, Aman Ullah P.W.7. He stated that on 23-1-1978 he recovered Mst. Sarwar Bibi from Chak No, 96 Tehsil Chishtian and arrested the petitioners at the same time and place. This statement goes unchallenged on the record. Mst. Sarwar Bibi who was admittedly a minor girl was found with the petitioners at a place far away from her house. This circumstance lends substantial support to her statement in so far as the offence of kidnapping is concerned. The conviction of the petitioners under section 363, P.P.C. Is, therefore, maintained.
6. This brings me to the question of sentence. The petitioners were arrested on 23-1-1978. The bail orders and bonds placed on the file show that Gulab was admitted to bail on 4-5-1978, Sher Muhammad alias Sheru on 24-6-1978 and Ramzan on 24-4-1978. They were convicted by the trial Court on 30-6-1981. In this way besides facing the agony of a prolonged trial for three and a half years, they suffered detention as under-trials for 3 to 6 months. Sentence of Gulab and Ramzan petitioners was suspended by the Sessions Court on 13-5-1982. Their appeal was dismissed on 15- 11-1982 and they were taken into custody on the same day and are in jail since then. They have undergone R.I. For three years and three months each. The prayer of Sheru petitioner for suspension of sentence was declined by the Sessions Court and he is undergoing sentence eversince the day of his conviction. He has undergone R.I. For about three years and nine months.
7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case including the period of detention as under-trials, I feel inclined to the view that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Their sentence is reduced to the term of imprisonment already undergone by them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. The petition stands disposed of.
' Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.