' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Mst. Rehm Ellahi, the victim of the occurrence, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, dated 30th October, 1988 whereby the conviction of the respondents under section 11 read with section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was set aside and instead conviction under sections 354 and 154/109, P.P.C. Was substituted and under section 323, P.P.C. Conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced.
2. On the 1st of March, 1986 at 4-00 p.m. Mst. Rehm Ellahi lodged a case at the Police Post Qaim Pur Police Station `Hasilpue District Bahawalpur making allegations against the three sons of Chiragh Shah and one Muhammad Nawaz, all respondents in the Petition. It was registered under section 354/34, P.P.C. The trial took place in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur under sections 18/11 of the Ordinance and ultimately all of them were convicted under section 11 and sentenced to life imprisonment, twenty stripes and a fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default one year's R.I.
Zaffar Shah and Manzoor Shah were also convicted under section 18 of the Ordinance and sentenced to five years R.I. Each with 10 stripes and a fine of Rs,1,000 each or in default one year R.I.
Each. Fazal Shah and Muhammad Nawaz respondents were convicted under section 109, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years R.I. Each. All the respondents were convicted under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year R.I. Each.
3. On their appeal, the Federal Shariat Court set aside their conviction and sentence under sections 11 and 18 of the Ordinance and instead convicted Zafar and Manzoor Shah under section 354, P.P.C.
And awarded the sentence of one year R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,1,000. Conviction of Fazal Shah under section 154/109, P.P.C. Was upheld, but the sentence reduced to one year R.I. The conviction of the respondents other than Nawaz under section 323 was maintained but the sentence reduced to 6 months R.I. Each. Muhammad Nawaz was acquitted of all the charges.
4. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the evidence with a view to demonstrate that the First Information Report was incorrectly recorded and so was the investigation dishonestly conducted by the Sub-Inspector. It was on their complaint that the D.S.P. Took charge of the case and correctly investigated it. According to the learned counsel, the evidence led at the trial fully established the case under sections 11 and 18 of the Ordinance and in any case the reduction in sentence was not called for even under sections 354, P.P.C. And 323, P.P.C.
5. The factors which weighed with the Federal Shariat Court in interfering with the conviction and sentence were that the three brothers could not join in raping the ladies. It was actually the attempt to disgrace them because they harboured in their minds a strong suspicion that one of the close relatives of the ladies was maintaining illicit relations with Mst.
Kausar a daughter of Fazal Shah respondent. Another factor noted was that in the F.I.R. No such aggravated version of the occurrence was given as was attempted at the trial. Similar was the case- with the two male witnesses who appeared to support the case of the prosecution because in their first statement to the Police they had not described the occurrence in that aggravated form in which they had brought out the events at the trial.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to explain these deficiencies to the dishonest and interested manner in which the Police Sub-Inspector handled the case at its initial stages.
7. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the evidence we find that the reasons given by the Federal Shariat Court are all relatable to material on record. These are the reasons which in any judicial trial require consideration. The benefit in a criminal case of such discrepancies must fairly be extended to the accused and not to the prosecution.
8. We find that this is not a lit case for our interference in acquittal. Hence leave to appeal is refused.