' The facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that Jalal petitioner was tried by Judicial Magistrate Sadiqabad for offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, on the charge that he enticed away Mst. Sehban wife of Saifal P.W.2 in order to subject her to illicit intercourse. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Saifal complainant, P.W.2 supported the story of the prosecution as detailed in the F.I.R. Nawazish Ali P.W.3 and Dost Muhammad P.W.4 are the wtinesses of Waj Takkar who saw Mst. Sehban going alongwith the petitioner and that on their enquiry Mst. Sehban told them that they were going to Sadiqabad City to purchase clothes. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced Shah Muhammad and Suchal D.Ws. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 16 of the Ordinance and sentenced to two years' R.I., 10 stripes and a fine of Rs,1,000 in default thereof to 3 months' R.I. On appeal maintaing the revision of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan reduced the sentence to one year's R.I., 10 stripes and a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof 14 months' R.I., hence this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Sehban, the principal witness having not been produced, the prosecution has failed to prove most important ingredient of section 16 of the Ordinance that she was enticed/taken way in order to subject her to sexual intercourse. '
Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Mst. Sehban having not been produced, there is nothing on the record to show that she was enticed/ taken away for the purpose of sexual intercourse. I find that there is evidence and that, too, from the prosecution side that she had gone with the petitioner to purchase clothes from Sadiqabad. I have examined the judgments of the Courts below. I find that the matter has not been appreciated in accordance with guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubts.
6. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt,' he is acquitted of the charge.
He is on bail, he stands discharged of bail bonds.