' The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that a case under sections 366/368, P.P.C. Was registered against Nazir alias Sajni, Mst.Rajo and Mst.Naziran petitioners and 2 others on the direction given by the High Court vide order passed in a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. After investigation, the challan was submitted before Resident Magistrate, Chunian, who vide his order dated 27-11-1968, convicted the appellants under section 366, P.P.C. And sentenced them to 4 years' R.L. And a fine of Rs,500 or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. For 6 months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore Camp at Kasur, who dismissed the same on 24-4-1969, hence, this revision.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that in the month of January, 1966, Mst.Sakina, the abductee, was going to the house of her maternal-grandfather to fetch flour when the petitioners persuaded her to accompany them to Khunda More. They took her to the house of Ishaq co-accused and kept her there for two months where Nazir petitioner committed rape upon her. Thereafter, she was removed to the house of Akbar co-accused situated in Chunian and was detained there for 10 days where Akbar co-accused committed rape upon her. The petitioners then removed her to a house where they kept her for some time again brought her to the house of Akbar wherefrom she was recovered under the orders of the High Court passed in a petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C., moved by Rehmu, father of the abductee.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Mst.Sakina P.W.2 supported the prosecution case as stated above. Mst.Bashiran P.W.3 and Rehmu P.W.4, who are the parents of the abductee have also supported the allegations of the abduction of Mst.Sakina by the petitioners. Ch. Idrees S.I.
P.W. Had recovered Mst.Sakina from the house of Akbar co-accused under the orders of the High Court. Dr. Abdul Khaliq had examined Nazir appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse.
The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
4. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances. No one has appeared for the petitioners.
5. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of thelearned counsel for the State. I find that Mst.Sakina is not a confidence inspiring witness. She was removed from place to place but she did not raise hue and cry; that when she was produced before the High Court in a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Filed by her father,' she refused to company him; that she did not involve the petitioners in her statement made before the High Court; that the Radiologist has not been produced to prove the X-Ray report relating to the age of the alleged abductee; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has stated in his judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of rape upon the abductee; that Mst.Bashiran and Rehmu are closely related to the abductee; that there is no independent corroboration of the statement made by the alleged abductee and that she was not recovered from the custody of the petitioners. For all these reasons.
I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge have not appreciated the evidence in accordance with the guidelines given by the Superior Courts for the appreciation of evidence in abduction cases.
' For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are, hereby, set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges. They are on bail. They stand discharged of bail bonds.