' This is an appeal against the order, dated 17-11-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan by which he convicted 'Allah Bukhsh under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced him to 14 years R.I. And 15 stripes.
2. The appellant and the complainant are neighbours. The prosecution case is that on the 5th February, 1981 at about 6-00 a.m. When the husband of Mst. Iqbal Begum complainant namely Nazir Ahmad, P.W.2 had gone out to purchase milk the appellant entered their house by scaling over the wall and forcibly took Mst. Iqbal Begum complainant to a room where he committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. She raised hue and cry which attracted her husband Nazir Ahmad, P.W.2 and Qasim who was given up as having been won over. The appellant ran away leaving his Chappal and a Safa. In this scuffle the shirt of Mst. Iqbal is also said to have been torn.
3. The First Information Report was recorded at Police Station Mianchannu on the basis of the statement written by Nazir Ahmad A.S.I. (Investigating Officer) at the instance of Mst. Iqbal Begum. It was explained that the accused party had been trying that the matter may be hushed up and for this reason the F.I.R. Was delayed.
4. Mst. Iqbal Begum was medically examined on 10-2-1981 by Dr. Tahira Riffat, P.W.5 who found her to be accustomed to sexual intercourse. She did not find any marks of violence on her body or her private parts. She took vaginal swabs which were found to be stained with semen. The complainant produced before the Investigating Officer a torn shirt which was taken into possession by memo. Exh.P.D. And a Safa and the Chappal alleged to be belonging to the appellant which were taken into possession by memo. Exh.P.C.
5. It is strange that at the trial the complainant stated that she did not know Allah Bukhsh appellant. She had also stated that he had muffled his face but later on she could see him when his Safa fell on the ground. Nazir Ahmed, P.W.2, her husband, stated that on hearing the hue and cry he entered through a window alongwith Qasim, he had only seen the accused from the window when he was running away and he could see his back only.
6. It will be clear that apart from the delay in the F.I.R there is also involved the question of identity of the accused. The complainant, did not know him at all while her husband had been able only to see his back. It, therefore, appears to me that the delay was caused for want of identification of the accused and not in any negotiation. The case is not proved against the appellant. I, therefore, give him the benefit of doubt. His appeal is accepted, his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.