' These two Criminal Revisions No,71/82 filed by Ghulam Hussain petitioner against his conviction under section 363, P.P. C. And No,120/82 filed by Mehr Khan complainant for the enhancement of sentence of Ghulam Hussain petitioner and against acquittal of Ha yat Muhammad co-accused, arise from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan, whereby he on 28-4-1989, acquitted Ha yat Muhammad co-accused of all charges, while acquitting Ghulam Hussain petitioner of charges under section 366/376, P.P.C. Convicted him under section 363, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 3 years R.I. And a fine of R..500 in default thereof 3 months R.I. The appeal filed by Ghulam Hussain petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Multan on 2-2-1982. I propose to dispose of the two matters through single judgment.
2. The charges against the accused were that they deceitfully kidnapped/abducted Mst. Sughran aged 14/15 years and thereafter Ghulam Hussain petitioner raped upon her. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 8 witnesses in all. Mehr Khan Complainant appeared as P.W.1. Mst. Sardaran P.W.2 and Mst. Sughran P. W.5 supported the allegations of kidnapping by both the accused and of rape by Ghulam Hussain petitioner. Mehr Khan Complainant P. W.1. Also produced Ex.PB, certified copy of the birth entry of Mst. Sughran. Dr. Kishwar Saeed P.W.4 had medically examined Mst. Sughran with regard to her age and rape. She was of the view that Mst.
Sughran was between 16/17 years in age at the time of her examination i.e, on 1-5-1979 and that sexual intercourse had been committed with her. Qayyum Naz, Secretary Union Council, Shujabad, P. W.6 had produced birth register in original in the Court, which was seen and returned. Ghulam Ahmad A .S.I. , P.W .7 investigated the case and recovered Mst. Sughran from Mohallah Kotla Tole Khan. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P. C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Ghulam Hussain petitioner raised the plea of his marriage with Mst. Sughran. He tendered Nikahnama Ex.DB in evidence. Affidavit Ex.D.A of Mst. Sughran was also tendered in evidence to show that she was a consenting party. In defence 2 witnesses were produced.
5. Giving him benefit of doubt, the trial Court acquitted Ha yat Muhammad accused of the charges.
Finding it a case of willingness, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner Ghulam Hussain of charges under section 366/376, P.P.C. But convicted him under section 363, P.P, C. On the ground that Mst.
Sughran being below the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence, her consent in the matter of her being kidnapped was immaterial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F .I.R.Was lodged after 5 months of the occurrence; that it was a case of elopement; that Mst. Sughran had married the petitioner with her consent; that birth entry Ex.PB being a photostat copy is not admissible in evidence; that according to the statement of the lady doctor, the age of Mst. Sughran was between 16/17 years; that she was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner but was recovered from Bazar Kotla Tola Khan, Multan, as stated by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the complainant has simply requested for the enhancement of the sentence of Ghulam Hussain petitioner.
7. I have anxiously attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the parties and the circumstances appearing in the case. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that Ex.PB is a certified copy of birth entry of Mst. Su ghran and not a photostat copy thereof, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner; that birth entry is a conclusive proof of the date of birth of Mst.
Sughran; that the birth entry shows that her age at the time of occurrence was below 16 years; that she was medically examined on 1-5-1979 i.e, after about 5/6 months of the alleged abduction, therefore, the opinion of the lady doctor that she was between 16/17 years of age at the time of her examination does not take the case of the petitioner any further. Furthermore, the Radiologist has not been produced to prove his report. The Courts below have properly appreciated the question of the age of Mst. Sughran at the time of occurrence. On my own assessment of evidence on record, I am convinced that Mst.Sughran was below 16 years in age at the time of occurrence, as such her consent to accompany the petitioner or to marry him was of no legal consequence. The defence evidence is too vague to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence, and as such, no exception can be taken to the conviction of Ghulam Hussain petitioner under section 363, P.P.C. As for Hayat Muhammad, I find that his case was/is quite distinguishable and he has rightly been acquitted.
8. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances, that Mst. Sughran was above 15 but below 16 years in age and that she had willingly accompanied the petitioner as held by the trial Court, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of 3 years R.I. To 2 years R.I. The fine imposed by the trial Court and the sentence in lieu thereof is maintained. The petitioner will get benefit of the provisions of Section 382-B, Cr.P. C. The trial Court will get Ghulam Hussain petitioner arrested and sent to jail to serve the sentence. The connected Cr.R. No, 120/82, automatically fails.
Se ntence reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.