The petitioners, Abbas alias Bassa, Anwar and Yaseen, seek, by this petition under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the revision of a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, dated 17-3-1976, dismissing the petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentence under section 354 of the P.P.C. Recorded by a judgment of Magistrate Ist Class, Okara, dated 27-8-1975. By the Magistrate's judgment, the petitioners were sentenced to suffer R.I. For six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo R.I. For six months each.
2. The prosecution case as contained in the First Information Report, which was made by Mst.
Sheeman P.W. On 22-2-1971 at 3.30 p.m., was as follows. In the evening of 21-2-1971, Mst. Sheeman was alone in the house. She went up to the outer door of her house to see if her younger brother was coming, when the petitioners caught hold of her. Abbas, petitioner, started kissing her; Anwar, petitioner, started fondling her breasts, and Yasin tried to untie her Shalwar. She raised an alarm which attracted Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Arif P.Ws. Her brother Gulzar also reached. The petitioners ran away. Her mother returned from the Bazar and she narrated the entire incident to her. The matter was not reported to the police, for the petitioners had been entreating her and her mother to let the matter rest there. She added that slit had suffered nail scratches on her chest; her shirt and Shalwar had also been torn.
3. The A.S.I., who recorded Mst. Sheeman's statement, found injuries on her person, prepared an injury statement and referred her t o the Lady Doctor. The Lady Doctor found two injuries on her person, namely, multiple scratches in an area of 6" x 5" on the left side of the chest and a blue bruise 1" x 1" on the back of right leg. She also complained of pain in the back. The injuries were simple and had been caused within about 24 hours duration. The l.zrdN Doctor could not be examined as a P.W., for she had gone to Australia. Her Medico-legal report was proved by the Lady Dispenser Mst. Zubaida (P.W. 5).
4. In support of its case, the prosecution called Mst. Shamim (P.W. 1), Munir Ahmad (P.W. 2) and Gulzar Ahmad (P.W. 3). They also called Muhammad Arif as a witness to the incident. But he said that he had no knowledge of the incident. Mst. Sheeman's statement at the trial was materially different from the F.I.R While she did say that the petitioners had molested her in the manner stated in the F.I.R., yet, according to her, she had obtained medical certificate during the night and had reported the incident at the police station the next day. She had also produced Shalwar P. f and shirt P. 2 at the police station. According to her, the incident occurred in the evening. The sunset time one 21-2-1971 was about 6.00 p.m. In cross-examination, she said that the F.I.R. Was made on 21st, the police reached the spot on 22nd and the incident had occurred on 20th. She also stated that all the three petitioners had caught her and had felled her on the ground and pressed her neck. She went so far as to say that the petitioners had given her fist blows and had bitten her with their teeth on her cheeks. Thus, Mst. Sheeman was not sure even of the date of the incident. She was positive that she was medically examined during the night of the incident and that it was thereafter that the matter was reported to the police. The medico-Legal report showed no injuries' on her cheeks. As the learned Sessions Judge had noticed, "the statement of Munir Ahmad runs counter to the case of Mst. Sheeman". According to him, Mst. Sheeman had not been felled on the ground; he had not seen the petitioners beating her or biting her on her cheeks. According to Gulzar Ahmad P.W., who, as noticed above, was a brother of Mst. Sheeman, the time of the incident was 8.00 p.m.; that was certainly not the evening time, for it was winter and as noticed above, the sunset time was about 6.00 p.m. It appears that he had to say that the time of incident was 8.00 p.m. To justify his presence, for he admitted that he was employed in WAPDA and had remained on duty till 7.00 p.m. And it had taken him about an hour to reach r home. All these facts, in my view, seriously affect the truth of the prosecution case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution case is not free from reasonable doubt. I therefore, accept the revision petition; set aside the petitioners' conviction and sentence and acquit them. They are on bail and shall stand, discharged of their bail bond.