' Muhammad Boota, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, through Habeas Petition (Crl.
Misc.No,297-H/89) sought recovery and production of his wife Mst. Shahnaz, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, who, was allegedly confined at police station Ichhra, Lahore, for the last 17 days, which came up for motion hearing on 14-5-1989, whereupon respondent No,2 therein i.e, Sher Dil, S.1. Was telephonically directed to produce the detenu on 15-5-1989, pursuance whereto, instead of the latter, Saadat Mehdi S.I. Tendered appearance alongwith the record and, pleading ignorance as to whereabouts of the detenu, on the basis of the record, submitted that at the detenu's behest a case was registered vide F.I.R. No, 145 dated 6-4-1989, at the police station concerning abduction of her sister-in-law, namely Razia Rani, hereinafter referred to as the abductee, who, upon reappearance, divulged that the detenu was pari delicto to her abduction, to which effect, subsequently, her statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Before Ilaqa Magistrate. It also transpired that the first information report was recorded by Munawar Hussain, S.I. Who initially investigated the case as well, therefore, he was summoned for the next day alongwith the abductee and her father Eid Muhammad. On 16-5-1989 learned counsel for the petitioner upon instructions reiterated that the detenu is still confined in the police station; consequently, at about 11-30 A.M. Deputy Registrar (Judicial), was sent for and was directed to straightaway despatch a bailiff to recover and produce the detenu. The latter submitted the report within 1(1/2) hours to the effect that in the company of the petitioner he raided the police station at about 12.30 p.m., took possession of the daily diary, in the presence of Asghar Ali, Moharrir Head Constable and looked up for the detenu, who was not found in the area of the police station to which he was allowed access viz. He was prevented by Asghar Ali from proceeding to the upper floor of the building; however, three women, namely Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz were found in the lock up who apprised him that the detenu was locked up with them and an hour before his arrival was Spirited away by the police. It was further reported that upon inquiry the Moharrir responded that the detenu was neither summoned to the police station nor was required in any criminal case.
2. Consequent upon the Bailiff's report, S.H.O. Police station ichhra was directed to appear and produce the above-named three women, alongwith Munawar Hussain S.I., Sher Dil S.I., Saadat Mehdi S.1. And Asghar Ali Head Constable on the next date i.e, 17-5-1989, for which date D.I.-G.
Lahore Range and S.S.P. Lahore were also summoned. In obedience whereto all of them tendered appearance. The D.I.-G. And the S.S.P. Were apprised of the appalling situation and were directed to have investigation of the abduction case transferred and look into the conduct of the officials concerned.
3. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General, who had put in appearance alongwith the police officials was required to join the proceedings under Court order.
4. All the Police Officials from Police Station Ichhra in attendance completely denied their knowledge as to the whereabouts of the detenu and so did the three women.
5. Whereafter, Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz were required to make statements under oath, pursuant whereto they were administered oath and, deposed that they have been arrested in theft cases, and, presently, are on remand with the police, and, with firmness denying the bailiff's report testified that the detenu was never lodged with them in the police lock up nor they have ever seen her and categorically denied having stated to the bailiff that the detenu was with them an hour before the raid. They resolutely denied the suggestion of having made false statement on oath under police pressure.
' It may be observed that their over enthusiastic demeanour demonstrating pre-emptive victorious rejoicing, as if they had won the Derby, was noteworthy.
6. At this juncture, I entertained the impression that prima facie they have not deposed the truth, because the Baliff, on account of stringent time scheduling, lack of foreign contact, absence of opportunity of winning over and hot pursuit for the petitioner, had no motive to tailor a false report, thus had the inbuilt characteristic credence; and that the police officials, inter alia, appear to have intentionally made false statements in this Court and so have the three women, therefore, I proposed to proceed against them under section 476, Cr.P.C., consequently, the habeas petition was converted into Criminal Original.
7. The three women were directed to be lodged in Darulaman till further orders, forbidding any access to them from the outer world including the near relations.
8. The accused police officials were confronted with the habeas petition, the Bailiff's report and were directed to have their statements recorded in this behalf after specifically administering caution to them that whatever they will state during the course of these proceedings, could be used as evidence against them rendering them liable to punishment. In this context, it is conducive to mention that they were not administered oath, because as police officials while appearing in this Court during the course of solemn proceedings they are always bound to state the truth within the contemplation of section 14 of the Oaths Act, 1873.
9. Qayyum Rashid, Inspector SHO stated that for the last fortnight, he has been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of his duties. He categorically pleaded utter ignorance as to the whereabouts of the detenu, however, admitted that Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz have been arrested in cases registered vide FIRs No,171 dated 20-4-1989 and 163 dated 17-4-1989 and, presently, are on remand with the police.
10. Likewise, Sher Dil S.I. Stated that for the last fortnight he has been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of his duties, save for May 10th to May 15th, when he was away to Islamabad in connection with an assignment. Though admitted that presently he is incharge of the investigation of the case, registered vide FIR No,145 dated 6-4-1989 under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 380 P.P.C. And section 46 of Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and had produced the abductee before Ilaqa Magistrate for recording of her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. But categorically pleaded complete unawareness as to the whereabouts of the detenu, save for having seen her once on 11-4-1989 with Munawar Hussain S.I., who was then incharge of the investigation. He further stated that Mst.Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz were formally arrested and are lodged in the lock up and are under interrogation with Muhamamd Shafi ASI.
11. Saadat Mehdi S.I. Admitting that for the last fortnight, he has been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of his duties, stated that he had seen the detenu with Munawar Hussain S.I.
While he was seized of the investigation, but ever since he has no knowledge of her whereabouts, and hastened to add that to this effect, he is prepared to swear upon the Holy Qur'an. Describing the police station building, he stated that offices of upper subordinates are on the ground floor, barracks are on the first, while there are some family quarters on the second. He further stated that on the previous night while he was proceeding in official jeep for patrol duty at 6.00 p.m he noticed Mst. Khalida, Nasreen and Kaniz sitting with Muhammad Shafi ASI in his office.
12. Muhammad Shafi ASI after stating that during the last fortnight he has been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of his duties, affirmed his awareness as to the abductee's case, its previous investigation by Munawar Hussain S.I. Of which presently Sher Dil S.I. Is the incharge; however, categorically pleaded complete ignorance as to the detenu's whereabouts. Nevertheless, by stating that his office is located just next to that of Munawar Hussain S.I. Admitted that one usually knows if any woman is detained in the police station, further in the ordinary course of events one would also know a person, particularly a woman, sitting with a colleague in the next office, specially in connection with the investigation of a rape/ kidnapping/abduction case. He also stated that presently he is incharge of investigation of both the cases wherein Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz have been arrested, whom, yesterday, he had taken out of the lock up at 12.40 p.m. For interrogation, entry to which effect was made in the daily diary at Sr. No,15 and they remained with him in his office till 4.00 p.m. He further stated that though he remained in the police station throughout but learnt of the Bailiff's raid only at 6.00 p.m. At this juncture, he was confronted with entry No,14 of the daily diary of 12.30 p.m. Regarding the bailiff's report i.e, immediately preceding his entry and that too within 10 minutes which obviously he could not reconcile. He also confirmed that family quarters are on the second floor of the building.
13. Asghar Ali, Moharrir Head Constable, stated that he has been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of his duties for the last fortnight save for May 7th to May 10th, when he was on leave, and, that he had seen the detenu only once in the police station towards the tail-end of April, 1989, subsequent whereto categorically pleaded complete ignorance as to her whereabouts.
He further stated that yesterday the bailiff arrived at the police station at about 12.00 noon, and was allowed free access to the lock up and other areas on the ground floor to search for the detenu. Further, denying having obstructed the bailiff from proceeding to first floor, he explained that the latter had travelled half-way through the staircase when he was told by the petitioner that the detenu has been removed an hour ago, thus he refused to go further up.
' At this juncture Qayyum Rashid, Inspector intervened and stated that he was in the High Court presincts in connection with another case from where he rang up the police station, talked to the bailiff who protested that Asghar Ali, Moharrir has obstructed him from proceeding upstairs, whereupon he directed the Moharrir to provide the facility.
' Asghar Ali further stated that immediately after departure of the bailiff, Muhammad Shafi ASI took out Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz from the lock up and kept them in his office till 4.00 p.m.
14. Munawar Hussain S.I. Stated that he recorded the FIR No,145/89 on 6-4-1989, at the instance of the detenu, and initially investigated the case for 4 days, during the course whereof the latter admitted of having been instrumental to the abduction of the abductee; whereafter he was taken off the investigation by D.S.P. Ichhra and the case was entrusted to Sher Dil S.I . , and, ever since, he has no connection with the case. He further stated that since 1-5-1989 he as been regularly attending the police station in the discharge of is duties. He affirmed having stated before this Court on 16-5-1989 hat he had no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the detenu. Explaining the ignorance, he stated that his office is situated on the front of the building while that of Sher Dil S.I. Is in the corridor, therefore, he would not know of any body sitting with him. He reiterated lack of knowledge about the detenu's detention in the police station for the last fortnight save on the day of bailiff's raid. In defence he stated that no witness has deposed against him.
15. Eid Muhammad, father of the petitioner, the abductee, and father-in-law of the detenu, on oath deposed that concerning abductee's abduction, a case was registered against Aamer and Arif at the dictation of the detenu, about 20 days whereafter the former returned on her own, factum whereof was reported to the police by his son Rafiq, whereupon he alongwith the abductee were summoned to the police station through Sabir Ali Head Constable, at which point of time Sher Dil, S.I. Also brought in the detenu, and, after 2/3 days of the investigation, the abductee's statement was recorded before the Magistrate. During this period the detenu remained with Sher Oil S.I., who, subsequently resummoned the abductee and kept her there for two days. During this period, as well as 2/3 days later, when he again visited the police station he found the detenu with Sher Dil S.I.
16. The petitioner, on oath testified that couple of days preceding the Holy month of Ramazan, the abductee was abducted, in which behalf, a case was registered at the instance of the detenu, but his family suspected that the detenu had something to do with the abduction, consequently he entertained difficulties with his parents, culminating into his migration to Multan, with a view to pursuing his vocation of autorikshaw driving there. They settled down in a house in "Kumhar"
Colony, near Railway Station at a rental of Rs, 300 per mensum. A fortnight later, when he had called on his in-laws in Chung, he was taken into custody by Sher Dil S.I. And was locked up in police station Ichhra, whereafter the latter also fetched the detenu from Multan, and, locked her up in the feminine section. After about 17 days, on the eve of Eid, he was let off, but the detenu was retained in the police station, where he had served her meals on 6/7 occasions. He further deposed that in the lock up, the detenu had the company of Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz. He also vouched the bailiff's report.
17. At the conclusion of the day's hearing, the case was adjourned to 24-5-1989, on which date, the detenu emerged on the surface and put in appearance in the Court, thus her statement under oath was also recorded.
18. The detenu corroborating testimony of the petitioner, deposed that she was fetched from Multan by Sher Dil S.I. And was confined in the lock up of police station Ichhra for nearly 25 days, from where she was taken out by the latter, on 5/6 occasions, mostly during night, for interrogation purposes. She also stated that during this confinement she was never produced before any Magistrate nor any remand was obtained. She further testified that on the day of the raid, in the morning she was taken out of the lock up by a person called Hafeez, who confined her in the room of a person named Munir, on the first floor of the police station and was kept there till evening and this exercise was repeated on two succeeding days, in the afternoon whereof she was taken by the above-name Hafeez to the marriage bureau of his wife in Ichhra, from where took her to his home at night and early in the morning, at about 3.00 a.m. Was transported to the police station in police jeep, fro where her custody was handed over to two civilians, who were already in waiting, who drove her away in a red colour car, to a nearby house, reportedly belonging to one Sikandar, where the petitioner was already present, to whom she was eventually entrusted.
19. Likewise, the abductee, on oath testifying story of her abduction, deposed that upon her return she was summoned to the police station and after keeping her there for 2 days, was produced before a Magistrate for recording of her statement. She further testified that twice subsequently, she was summoned to the police station by Sher Dil S.I. And on both the occasions she found the detenu in the lock up.
20. The accused police personnel were specifically provided opportunity to cross-examine Eid Muhammad, the petitioner, the detenu, the bailiff and the abductee but all of them declined to avail of the same save for Qayyum Rashid, Inspector, on whose behalf Mr. Aftab Gul, Advocate and Sher Dil S.I. Personally asked certain questions, which are reproduced herein below alongwith the reply, in extenso: ' Eid Muhammad ' IT x x by Mr. Aftab Gul, Advocate. Q. Who abducted your daughter?
A. I am told by the abductee that she was abducted by Aamer and Arif.
Q. Is the detenu involved in the abduction of the abductee?
A. It seems to be so."
' The detenue "x x x by Sher Dil S.I.
Q. Did you cause abduction of the abductee Razia?
A. No, Q. Do you have illicit relations with Aamer and Arif accused in the abduction case?
A. No, Q. Is it true that in the FIR you recorded that the purse you were carrying contained Rs,10,000 cash, a necklace, a pair of ear-rings and a lip-stick, which was taken away by abductee Razia Rani, when she was spirited away by Aamer and Arif.
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it true that you alongwith the abducteee, Aamer and Arif had a lunch at Khan Baba's hotel in Chauburji.
A. Yes, but it happened a day prior to the abduction. Q. Did you send the abductee with Aamer and Arif.
A. No, I did not send her with anybody. She went with them on her own accord. Q. You have made today's statement upon tutorage.
A. No,"
21. Confronted with the evidence that had come on the record, Qayyum Rashid, Inspector pleaded guilty of having intentionally made false statement in the Court concerning the whereabouts of the detenu, being privy to Sher Dil S.I. And Muhamamd Shafi ASI in procuring favourable satements, under pressure, from Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz viz, disowning and refuting the statements which they had made to the bailiff; and tendered unqualified and unconditional apology and in mitigation submitted that false statement was made out of fear of the Court and has undergone enormous torture.
22. Likewise, Sher Dil S.I. Pleaded guilty of having intentionally made false statement in the Court as to the whereabouts of the detenu and having procured favourbale statement, under pressure from Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz; however, subsequently, attempted to wriggle out of the latter count.
23. Similarly Asghar Ali, Moharrir Head Contable though pleaded guilty of having intentionally made false statement in the Court as to the whereabouts of the detenu but denied having obstructed the bailiff from proceeding upstairs in search of the detenu.
24. Saadat Mehdi S.I., Munawar Hussain S.I. And Muhamamd Shafi ASI pleaded not guilty.
25. At the conclusion of the day's hearing, Mst.Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz were summoned from Darulaman for 31-5-1989. On which date, all three of them, having realised that the party is over and the truth has resurrected itself through the dense mystery, at the very outset, without putting french dressing around, made a clean breast statement, by frankly confessing that they had intentionally made false statements in the Court, and, affirming the bailiff's report, stated that the detenu was lodged with them in the lock up for about 11/12 days, and on the day of the raid, an hour preceding the bailff's arrival, she was taken upstairs by the police and, soon after the bailiff left the police station, Muhammad Shafi ASI took them to his office where he impressed upon them that during the course of proceedings in this Court, they should resile from the statements which they made to the bailiff, in reciprocity whereof, necessary co-operation would be extended to them; failing which they will be involved in more cases and would not be allowed to be bailed out. They further stated that this exercise was repeated in the evening by Qayyum Rashid, Inspector as well.
26. Mr. Aftab Gul, Advocate, regarding Mst. Kaniz stated that she has improved upon the story and has contradicted the remaining two by adding that while Muhammad Shafi AS1, was working on them in his office, Qayyum Rashid Inspector also participated in addition to the evening exercise.
' It may be observed that these are details and not improvements which the other two women opted not to give, independent thereof, it is inconsequential and nothing turns on it when visualized in totality of the perspective including confession.
27. Having considered each piece of the evidence that has come on the record during the course of these proceedings, independent of the confessional statements, viz, the bailiff, who in the attending circumstances, neither had any malice against any of the accused persons nor was questioned in this behalf, despite of the fact that the latter were expressly provided with the opportunity, nor he is shown to have any motive to unduly favour the petitioner or the detenu, therefore, sanctity of truth is attached to his report, which stands corroborated by unrebutted and unimpeached evidence forthcoming from independent witnesses i.e, the petitioner, the detenu, the abductee and her father Eid Muhammad, Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the detenu was kept at the police station for more than a fortnight; I feel no hesitation in saying that I am impelled to arrive at an irresistable conclusion that save for Saddat Mehdi S.I., all the accused police officials coupled with the three women have intentionally, with knowledge and belief, made false statements in this Court concerning detention of the detenu at the police station.
28. Now I advert to the individual cases. Qayyum Rashid, Inspector: ' The habeas petition was set down for motion hearing before me on 14th May, 1989, whereupon, Sher Dil S.I. Was directed to be summoned telephonically for May the 15th, which direction was carried out by the officer forthwith, in pursuance whereto Saadat Mandi S.I. On May the 15th put in appearance, thereby proving that in the afternoon of May the 14th officials of the police station had come to know that a habeas petition is pending in the High Court concerning the detenu. On the 15th, upon revelation that Munawar Hussain S.I. Had initially investigated the case and interrogated the detenu, was summoned for the next day, i.e, May the 16th, thus the doubt if any ought to have been repelled from the minds of all the concerned. On the 16th, when Munawar Hussain appeared, the bailiff was deputed, to whom Qayyum Rashid admittedly spoke on telephone in the police station. Despite of that, on May the 17th, under caution, he categorically denied his knowledge as to the whereabouts of the detenu, who had been produced before him by Sher Dil S.I. After he had fetched her from Multan, and, last night, had put in concerted labour for prevailing upon Mst.
Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz, with a view to making them resile from the statements which they had made to the bailiff.
' Therefore, independent of his belated confessional statement, case against him stands fully established beyond any manner of doubt.
29. Regarding the apology etc. It suffices to mention that it came too late in the day, and, that too, after recording of the uncontrovertible evidence, with a view to wriggling out of the obvious situation as the ultimate drowning man's endeavour of bailing out of the torpedo vessel and not as a genuine, in time, remorse.
' Furthermore, I am of the firm view that as incharge of the police station, had he answered the call of duty, as a person in commanding position of the unit, in disgorging out the truth on the first appearance it is beyond contemplation to contemplate that the remaining co-accused could have afforded to conceive to state anything but the truth, though at its worst, individually might have tried to pass on the buck from one to the other, with a view to absolving one self of the liability; therefore, his conduct is neither pardonable nor compoundable; consequently, he is convicted under section 193 of the P.P.C. And is sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.
30. Sher Dil S.I. Is the principal actor of this episode. Being seized of the investigation, he arrested the petitioner from Chung, locked him up in the police station and, on the basis of the information divulged to him, unearthed the detenu from Multan, took her into custody, fetched her over to the police station and detained her there till these proceedings. And, despite of being possessed of indepth knowledge of the whole affair, he had the audacity of intentionally making false statement in the Court, factum whereof stands fully corroborated by the evidence of Mst. Nasreen, Khalida, Kaniz, Eid Muhammad, the petitioner and the detenu, independent of the confessional statement subsequently made by him in conjunction with the co-accused police officials.
' It may be observed that belated pleading of guilt, after having been confronted with uncontrovertible evidence does not justify stamping out the crime; consequently, he is also found guilty of E having intentionally given false evidence in this Court, and is convicted under section 193 of the P.P.C. And is sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.
31. Munawar Hussain S.I. Affirming that he had recorded the F.I.R. No,145 on 6-4-1989 to the dictation of the detenu, and investigated the case for 4 days, during the course whereof she admitted to have been pari delico to the abduction, whereafter he was taken off the investigation by the D.S.P.
At the instance of abductee's father and was entrusted to Sher Dil S.I., stated that thenceforth he was not aware of the whereabouts of the detenu (despite of the fact that he has been regularly attending the police station since 1-5-1989) till the bailiff's raid. This stance is highly incredible and is not confidence inspiring. It is inconceivable that a police officer who, registered the FIR, at the instance of the detenu, partly investigated the case, succeeded in obtaining confession from her, that she was pari delicto to the abduction, investigation whereof got transferred on complaint, would have remained ignorant of the detenu who was locked up in the police station for nearly 25 days. Inherent falsity of his statement gets magnified when examined in the light of the fact that the petition was filed on 14-5-1989, whereupon Sher Dil S.I was telephonically summoned for the very next day i.e, 15-5-1989, on which date Saadat Mehdi S.I. Appeared, through whom he was summoned for 16-5-1989 how on the earth, with knowledge of the habeas petition pertaining to the detenu, who proved to have been in the lock up for well over 25 days, he could have remained ignorant of her wherabouts unless he claims to be undergoing solitary confinement in an impregnable quarantine in the Arctic, totally cut off from the inhabited world.
' His self-assumed ignorance is a pregnant wilful lie; consequently, he is found guilty of having intentionally with knowledge and belief given false evidence in this Court and is convicted under section 193, P.P.C.; but, since had no more connection with the case, therefore, he is sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.
32. Saadat Mehdi S.1. Neither appears to have been associated with this case throughout nor any role has been ascribed to him save for the fact that on 15-5-1989 instead of Sher Dil S.I. He was sent with the record. None of the witnesses have deposed anything against him; furthermore, his demeanour of voluntary offer to swear upon the Holy Quran as to lack of his knowledge of the detenu's whereabouts was confidence inspiring. No case is made out against him; therefore, he is acquitted of the charges.
33. Muhammad Shafi ASI, denying his awareness of the detenu's confinement in the police station, admitted to having had the knowledge of the abduction case, its initial investigation by Munawar Hussain S.I. And subsequent entrustment to Sher Dil S.I. He also admitted that in the ordinary course of events one would know about detention of a woman in the police station specially in a rape/kidnapping/ abduction case. In my opinion his denial of the irreconcilable obvious, immensely militates against him viz. Despite of having admitted that on May the 15th, he took the three women out of the lock up at 12.40 p.m. To which effect entry No,15, was recorded in the daily diary, i.e, immediately succeeding the bailiff's entry No,14, he conveniently opted the posture that he did not learn about the bailiff's raid till 6.00 p.m. Which amounts to asking too much premium for the handicapped ignorance. Furthermore as discussed in the case of Qayyum Rashid, subsequent to the telephonic summoning of Sher Dil S.I. On May the 14th, any plea of ignorance as to the whereabouts of the detenu of a person placed as Muhamamd Shafi ASI was, would be suffering from inherent incurable infirmity thus would be devoid of any credence. This inference is fortified by the statements of the three women and Qayyum Rashid, of his having worked on the former with a view to persuading them to resile from the statements which they had made to the bailiff; consequently he is equally found guilty of having intentionally, with knowledge and belief given false evidence in this Court, and is convicted u/s 193 of the P.P.C., and is sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.
34. Asghar Ali, being Moharrir of the police station could have not remained ignorant of the detenu's detention in the lock up at least May the 14th onward when factum of the habeas petition was recorded in the daily diary of the police station as to telephonic summoning of Sher Dil S.I., specially when read in conjunction with the bailiff's report which stands corroborated by the remaining witnesses. Therefore, he is also found guilty of having intentionally with knowledge and belief given false evidene in this Court, and is convicted u/s 193 of the P.P.C. And sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.
35, Mst. Nasreen, Khalida and Kaniz upon confessing the guilt of having intentionally with knowledge and belief given false evidence in this Court, in defence, pleaded police pressure. Be that as it may, I am of the view that appropriate course for them would have been to cast off their fear on the very.... First appearance in the Court and state the whole truth including the police pressure, consequent whereupon they would have been safe and dry and would have earned legal protection from the Court, but they opted otherwise; consequently, they are found equally guilty of having intentionally, with knowledge and belief, given false evidence in this Court and are convicted under section 193 of the P.P.C.; however, taking a lenient view, they are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment only.
36. Having pronounced the sentences, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be better served if sentences of all the convicts referred to supra are suspended for a period of five years, which would become operative if they are found guilty in any other offence during this period.
37. Before parting, it is desired that a copy of this judgment should be sent to 0.1.-G. Lahore Range, for looking into the conduct of Qayyum Rashid Inspector, Sher Dil SI and Muhammad Shafi ASI for having abused their legal authority in procuring disappearance of evidence of the three women viz. Making them resile from the statements which they had made to the Bailiff of this Court, and that of Asghar Ali, Moharrir Head Constable for obstructing the latter in the discharge of his duties. 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.