' KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARY, J.-- Khalid alias Bhola son of Talib Hussain, resident of District Faisalabad has filed this appeal from the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dated 24- 11-1987, whereby he was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, to whipping numbering five stripes and to a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default of its payment to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Mst. Noor Begum, P.W., reported the matter to the police that when she went to the field for cutting fodder for the animals in Killa No, 23 of Square No, 15 of Chak No, 73/GB, District Faisalabad the appellant appeared and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He also threatened her with dire consequences. On her alarm Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Arshad (P.Ws.) reached there and witnessed the occurrence. The appellant had restrained her from reporting the matter and relatives of the appellant had been pressing her for compromise. After getting herself medically examined she lodged the first information report, on 16-7-1985 at 7-30 p.m. At Police Station, Jaranwala, in respect of an occurrence which earlier took place on 12-7-1985.
3. At the trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. Lady Dr. Shamim Birlas had medically examined Mst. Noor Begum wife of Mushtaq on 15-7-1985 at 5-00 p.m. She was of the opinion that the victim was used to sexual intercourse. She took two vaginal swabs which were found stained with semen by the Chemical Examiner. Dr. Muhammad Riaz Ali who medically examined the appellant found him fit to perform sexual intercourse. Sajawal Hussain who was to prove recoveries of bangles, shirt and Shalwar of the victim and wrist watch of appellant which articles were produced by the victim herself did not support the prosecution. He was declared hostile. Abdul Ghafoor, Moharrir Head Constable, registered formal first information report at police station. Faqir Muhammad proved recoveries of pieces of bangles, torn shirt and Shalwar of the victim and wrist watch of the appellant which were also proved by Muhammad Abbas, Sub-Inspector, who had investigated this case. Muhammad Arshad, eye-witness, was declared hostile because he did not support the prosecution.
4. The material witnesses examined in the case indicated the victim NUL Noor Begum, who narrated the facts stated by her in the first information report. She deposed that on the day of occurrence when she went to the fields to fetch fodder and was cutting it for cattle the appellant suddenly appeared and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. She raised alarm on which Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Arshad, P.Ws., were attracted and witnessed the occurrence. On return home she informed her father-in-law and reported the matter after getting herself medically examined. The relatives of the appellant had been approaching her for compromise which delayed the lodging of first information report. She produced wrist watch left by the appellant at the spot. She also produced pieces of her broken bangles, her torn shirt and Shalwar. All these articles were secured.
Ghulam Rasool, corroborated her. Ghulam Rasool deposed that he was taking his cattle towards the canal when he heard alarm raised by Mst. Noor Begum and saw the appellant committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her in Killa No, 23 of Square No, 15 of his Chak No, 73/G.B. Mst. Noor Begum was naked at that time and her Shalwar was lying aside. The appellant left behind his wrist watch at the spot. The broken bangles of Mst. Noor Begum were lying at place of occurrence. Her shirt was torn and string of her Shalwar was broken. The positive report of Chemical Examiner about swabs from the vagina of Mst. Noor Begum was tendered in evidence.
5. The appellant denied allegations against him. He admitted it as correct that Mst. Noor Begum was present at the spot but appellant had only forbidden her from cutting grass as she was doing so from field of the appellant which was adjacent to the spot. He denied that wrist watch recovered in the case belonged to him. He stated that he had been implicated due to party faction as appellant belonged to Jat bratheri while complainant party was from Arain bratheri. He did not appear as his own witness in disproof of the charge nor did he lead any evidence in his defence.
6. It was argued before us that the belated first information report was registered after preliminary investigation on 16-7-1985 for an occurrence which took place on 12-7-1985. It was further submitted that eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the site plan due to which their presence at the spot was doubtful. Mst. Noor Begum did not speak truth and was not worthy of reliance. It was also submitted that medical evidence did not support the prosecution because there was no grouping test and it was not known if semen was of her own husband or of the appellant. It was also submitted that no sickle was recovered in the case and it was doubtful if the victim had gone to the field for cutting grass and that the appellant was aged about 19 years who was not expected to have committed Zinabil-Jabr with Mst. Noor Begum, a 31 years old married woman. According to learned counsel recoveries of bangles and torn shirt and Shalwar of the victim as well as wrist watch of the appellant at the spot were planted. The appellant had been implicated due to party faction.
7. The occurrence was proved by Mst. Noor Begum and Ghulam Rasool who named the appellant alone to have committed the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr. Mst. Noor Begum had no enmity to implicate the appellant. Ghulam Rasool was a natural witness of the occurrence who saw the appellant committing Zina-bilJabr with Mst. Noor Begum who was seen naked by him after the appellant ran away. The ocular evidence is consistent and uniform. The positive report of chemical examiner proved that sexual intercourse had been committed with her. The delay in such cases is not unusual and has been explained in a satisfactory manner. The defence that appellant was falsely involved due to party faction was not plausible. The appellant did not state on oath nor did he lead any evidence to support his plea which is remote one. On the evidence we feel satisfied that the prosecution had established guilt of the appellant and the trial Court rightly convicted him on the charge of committing Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Noor Begum.
8. In view of the above we find no merit in the appeal. The conviction and sentences of appellant awarded by the trial Court are upheld while his sentence of whipping is enhanced to thirty stripes.
His sentence of fine is set aside. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall get benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.