' This is an application for grant of pre-arrest bail to Mst. Azmat Bibi, Rashid Ahmad and Faqir Muhammad petitioners in a case under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Liaquatpur vide F.I.R. No,187/88. The allegations against the petitioners are that after preparing false Mukhtarnama, allegedly executed by Muhammad Isa in favour of Faqir Muhammad, the petitioner namely Faqir Muhammad fraudulently transferred the land of Muhammad Isa in favour of his mother Mst. Azmat Bibi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a civil suit relating to the transaction of gift by Muhammad Isa through Faqir Muhammad attorney in favour of Mst. Azmat Bibi is pending before the Civil Court, and it was after the filing of this suit that Muhammad Isa has lodged false report against the petitioners and that in an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Registrar has stated that Mukhtarnama executed by Muhammad Isa in favour of Faqir Muhammad is a genuine document. Conversely the learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the plea for the bail of the petitioners.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that on the strength of Mukhtarnama dated 14-5-1988, allegedly executed by Muhammad Isa in favour of Faqir Muhammad, the latter has transferred the land of the former in favor of his mother Mst. Azmat Bibi as a gift and that during the inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, the Mukhtarnama dated 15-5-1988 in favour of Faqir Muhammad has been found to be a false document. The very fact of the transfer of the land of Muhammad Isa as a gift by Faqir Muhammad in favor of his own mother throws doubt on his bona fides, and as such it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed the alleged offences. For these reasons I feel that no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to Faqir Muhammad is made out. The application to this extent is, therefore, dismissed.
4. As for Mst. Azmat Bibi and Rashid Ahmad petitioners I find that Mst. Azmat Bibi being a woman her case falls within proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. Rashid Ahmad has not played the major role in the occurrence. The case of Mst. Azmat Bibi and Rashid Ahmad is quite distinguishable. The interim bail granted to them on 14-12-1988 is confirmed.
1989 P Cr. L J 1606 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J MUHAMMAD YOUSAF--Petitioner versus THE STATE--Respondent Criminal Revision No, 114/BWP of 1984, decided on 6th June, 1988.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ---S. 354--Evidence, appreciation of--Allegation of outraging modesty of woman-- Prosecutrix having no serious enmity against accused for involving him falsely--Statement of prosecutrix supported by other witnesses in material particulars--Witnesses successfully facing test of cross- examination--No infirmity, material contradiction, major discrepancy or dishonest improvement found in testimony of witnesses--Accused unable to rebut prosecution case--Defence witness also supporting allegation against accused--Accused, held, was rightly convicted for outraging modesty of a woman in circumstances. [p. 1607] A
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ---S. 354--Quantum of sentence--Accused facing agony of protracted trial and not previous convict--Sentence reduced in circumstances. [p. 1607] B A.R. Tayyib for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Nabi for the State. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
' The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that Muhammad Yousaf was tried under section 354, P.P.C. On the charge of outraging the modesty of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Mst. Sharifan appeared as P.W.1. She stated that the petitioner had caught hold of her by arms and breast and the occurrence was seen by Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2). Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2) has supported the statement of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Sattar were not produced by the prosecution.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence, one witness was produced. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 354, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by the appellant failed on 3-9-1984, hence this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities such as contradictions and discrepancies; that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. And that there is no corroboration of the statement of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). In the alternative, the learned counsel requested for reduction in sentence. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Mst. Sharifan has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner which amount to outraging her modesty within the meaning of section 354, P.P.C., that she had no serious enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in the case; that Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2) has supported the statement of Sharifan in material particulars; that the two witnesses have faced the test of cross- examination successfully; that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses do not suffer from infirmity such as material contradictions, major discrepancies and dishonest improvements. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The defence witness, namely, Mian Ghulam Rasool has rather supported the allegations against the petitioner. For all these reasons I am convinced that the petitioner has rightly been convicted under section 354, P.P.C.
6. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the occurrence took place in the year 1982; that the petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial and that he is not a previous convict, I reduce the sentence from two years' R.I. To one year's R.I. The petitioner will surrender himself before the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar within 7 days from today. On his failure to do so, the learned A.C. Will get him arrested and send him to jail to serve the sentence.
Sentence reduced.