1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Both these petitions are heard together as they arise out of two cross- cases and the occurrence took place on the same day over the abduction of the same girl.
2. Petition No. 102/72 Son of petitioner Gul Muhammad had married Mst. Zahoor Illahi, daughter of respondent Wahid Bakhsh but after some time the relations between the spouses got strained and there was divorce.
3. Mumtaz Hussain deceased in the cross-case claimed to be the husband of Mst. Amir Mai, daughter of the petitioner. She disputed the marriage with Mumtaz Hussain and accordingly she filed a declaratory suit which was pending at the time. On 30-8-1969 at about 10 a.m. She was present in her house along with her parents and her brother Irshad Hussain when suddenly the accused- respondents, who were all armed with sticks, and Mumtaz Hussain deceased who was armed with a hatchet broke into the house and tried to forcibly carry away Mst. Amir Mai. Gul Mohammad and his wife and their son Irshad intervened and were injured. The alarm raised by the inmates attracted some other witnesses. A fight ensued between the parties and it resulted in injuries to both the parties. The petitioner's party succeeded in securing the release of Mst. Amir Mai, and over--powering two of the accused persons viz. Respondents Mahfooz and Amir.
4. The defence case was that Mst. Amir Mai was living with her husband (deceased) Mumtaz Hussain in his house. She was forcibly carried away by her father and others who beat Mumtaz Hussain resulting in his death.
5. The learned Judge of the High Court found that it was the respondents' party who had tried to forcibly carry off Mst. Amir Mai. This finding was based on the medical evidence that the girl was a virgin. This negatived the defence case that Mst, Amir Mai was the wife of Mumtaz Hussain deceased and lived with him in his house for sometime. Furthermore, there was the evidence that at least three of the inmates of the house of petitioner, includ--ing the mother of the girl were injured. It was absurd that the mother would go all the way to the house of Mumtaz Hussain to forcibly abduct her daughter. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was found to be consistent. The learned Judge, however, found that no active role or overt act was attributed to respondents Ghulam Qadir, Faiz Bakhsh and Allah Wasaya, and therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt and they were acquitted. Having regard to the fact that the accused were unsuccessful in their attempt to abduct the girl, and that one of their men, namely, Mumtaz Hussain, lost his life in the bargain, the learned Judge took a lenient view of the matter, and while he maintained the conviction of the rest of the respondents on all the charges, he reduced their sentences to the period already undergone. The period was a little over 8 months.
6. Petition No. 2/72 This petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's revisional application and refusing to interfere with the order of acquittal of respondents Gul Mohammad and his son Irshad Hussain, and respondents Rab Nawaz and Shah Mohammad of charges under sections 302, 323 and 452 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
7. The prosecution story was that Mst. Amir Mai, daughter of respondent Gul Mohammad was married sometime in 1969 to Mumtaz Hussain who was killed at the occurrence. In exchange for this marriage Mst. Zahoor Mai, daughter of P. W. Wahid Bakhsh was married to respondent Irshad Hussain son of respondent Gul Mohammad. Irshad Hussain divorced his wife, and respondent Gul Muhammad persuaded his daughter Amir Mai to file a suit for a declaration that she had not been married to Mumtaz Hussain deceased. On 30-8-1969 Amir Mai came to the house of Wahid Bakhsh, and an hour after her arrival the said four respondents armed with dangs entered the house and beat Mumtaz Hu5sain (deceased) and also caused injuries to P. Ws. Wahid Bakhsh and Karim Bakhsh when they tried to intervene. The respondents took away Amir Mai with them. Mumtaz Hussain was taken to the hospital where he died on 1-9-1969. A first Information Report was lodged implicating the respondents but the report made no mention of the injuries received by the accused-respondents.
8. The case of the defence was that after the divorce of the said Mst. Zahoor Mai the prosecution witnesses along with Mumtaz Hussain (deceased) came armed to the house of respondent Gut Mohammad and tried to forcibly carry away Mst. Amir Mai, but failed. The injured respondents were examined medically on the 1st September 1969, and Gut Mohammad was found to have suffered seven injuries including an incised one 1J" x I" muscle deep on the outer part of the right hand, Shah Mohammad had 3 injuries with a blunt weapon and Rab Nawaz had a tender swelling on the outer side of the right wrist. Two inmates of the house of Gut Muhammad, namely, his wife Mst. Ghulam Sakina and his daughter Amir Mai had also been injured. On medical examination Mst. Amir Mai was found to be about 15 years old, and a virgin. The trial Judge accordingly held that the story of her marriage with Mumtaz Hussain and her stay with him for one year was false and this knocked the bottom out of the prosecution story. The marriage itself was held not proved. On the contrary the defence case was held to be probable on account of the injuries to list. Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Amir Mai. Mumtaz Hussain deceased was alleged to have been armed with a hatchet and the incised injury on respondent Gut Mohammad showed that it had been used against him. The High Court accordingly rejected the revisional application.
9. The contentions urged in favour of the two leave petitions are related to the appreciation of evidence and this Court does not interfere with such appreciation. The learned Judge of the High Court has given valid reason for agreeing with the trial Court's findings and we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's order.
10. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.