' The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Karim Bakhsh and Muhammad Bakhsh appellants with three others were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur under section 11/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The charge against the accused persons was that they attempted to abduct Mst. Zohra Bibi in order to subject her to illicit intercourse. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case prosecution examined seven witnesses. Malik Khalil Ahmad Advocate P.W. 2, Allah Dewaya P.W. 3, Mst. Zohran Mai P.W. 5 and her mother Mst. Amiran P.W. 6 have given ocular account of the occurrence. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature. The eye- witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
3. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr. P.C. Denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication. In defence they produced no evidence. At the conclusion of the trial the co-accused were acquitted and the appellants were convicted on 20-11- 1984 under section 354, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that there are material discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses and that the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of three co- accused has been relied and acted upon by the trial Court for convicting the appellants.
Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As for Karim Bakhsh appellant, I find that the prosecution evidence is consistent. The witnesses including Malik Khalil Ahmad Advocate P.W. 2 who appears to be a quite independent witness and has stood the test of cross-examination successfully have stated that he had criminally assaulted on Mst.
Zohran Mai and dragged her. I do not see any inherent infirmity in the statement of Malik Khalil Ahmad Advocate. To me his statement appears to be confidence inspiring. So far Muhammad Bakhsh is concerned, I find that although Met. Zohran Mai P.W. 5 and Mst. Amiran P.W. 6 have stated that he alongwith Karim Bakhsh had assaulted on the complainant yet Malik Khalil Ahmad Advocate had not supported them. According to Malik Khalil Ahmad Advocate P.W. 2 Karim Bakhsh and Noor Hussain had got hold of her. This contradiction can be safely termed as major contradiction. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted Karim Bakhsh under section 354, P.P.C.
6. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that Karim Bakhsh is not a previous convict I feel inclined to reduce the setences from one year's R.I. To six months' R.I.
Which may meet the case.
7. For what has been stated above, the appeal of Karim Bakhsh is partly accepted while maintaining his conviction under section 354, P.P.C. His sentence is reduced to six months' R.I. While giving benefit of doubt, Muhammad Bakhsh appellant is acquitted of the charge.