' The appellants Muhammad Ashraf and three others have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27-9-1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 354-A, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Muhammad Ashraf was sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment of fine to two years' R.I, whereas the remaining three appellants were sentenced to a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default one year's R.I. Each.
'Ashraf was further directed to pay Rs.5,000 whereas the other appellants to pay Rs.3,000 each as compensation to Mst. Sajida complainant.
' Muhammad Ashraf was further convicted under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.3,00Cipor in default six months' R.I. His substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 8-12-1986 at 4-30 p.m. In village Achhral within the jurisdiction of Police Station Fateh Jang. Report Exh.P.L. Was lodged by Mst. Sajida P.W.5 which was recorded by Muhammad Munir Sub-Inspector P.W.8, on the same day at 8-30 p.m. The distance from the place of occurrence to the police station is 15 K.M.
3. According to the F.I.R. On 8-12-1986 at Deegerwela' (Asar prayer time), Mst. Sajida Bibi complainant (P.W.5) was present in her house in village Achhral, Tehsil Fateh Jang alongwith her sisters Khalida (P.W.7) and Nasreen (not produced), her mother Ghulam Fatima (not produced) and her grandmother Mst. Nur Jehan (P.W.6), when suddenly they saw Ashraf appellant having entered the interior of the house, through a window on the north-west. He raised Lalkara and lifted Sajida Bibi on his shoulders and raced towards the outer door of the house, where other three appellants, namely, Aksar Khan, Nawab Khan and Karam Khan, armed with stick, hatchet and pistol respectively, were present. The gate of the Haveli had no shutters. Ashraf appellant passed on Mst.
Sajida P.W.5 to the other appellants. Aksar Khan and Karam Khan caught hold of her by the legs and Nawab Khan held her arms. They took her to the rear of the house and in the chowk she was put on the ground. Ashraf removed her Shalwar by tearing it, whereas Aksar and Nawab tore off her shirt and removed it, with the result that she became absolutely naked. Karam Khan pressed his pistol at the naked belly of Sajida threatening her not to raise alarm, Ashraf pulled her breasts. The incident was seen by other four female members of the family as also by Muhammad Khan, her maternal-uncle, who appeared on the scene and taking notice of him, the appellants left Sajida and fled away. Mst. Nur Jehan took off her woollen Chaddar and covered the naked body of Sajida and in that condition she was taken home. Ashraf appellant left behind his Chaddar, which, together with Sajida's Chaddar P.4, shirt P.5 and Shalwar P.6, was collected from the spot by Nur Jehan and later on handed over to the police.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants examined eight witnesses. The brief resume of their evidence is as under:- ' P.W. 1 Lady Doctor Tanvir Fatima medically examined Sajida Bibi on 8-12-1986 at 11-40 p.m. And found three abrasions on her body. She also complained of pain in the breasts and arms. This witness proved the medico-legal report Exh.PA.
' Ch. Inayatullah, Resident Magistrate, Fateh Jang (P.W.2) recorded the statements of Mst. Sajida Bibi, Mst. Nur Jehan, Mst. Khalida Parveen, Mst. Nasrin Bibi, Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Muhammad Khan under section 164, Cr.P.C. Ghulam Muhammad A.S.I. P.W.3 escorted P.W.5 Mst. Sajida for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Fateh Jang. Zar Dad P.W.4 witnessed the recovery of hatchet P.1, Soti P.2, revolver P.3 at the instance of Nawab, Aksar and Karam Khan, respectively. P.W.5 Mst.
Sajida Bibi reiterated what she mentioned in the F.I.R. She was subjected to lengthy cross- examination by the learned counsel for the defence and he has pointed out certain discrepancies in her statement, which will be discussed later on. P.W.6 Mst. Nur Jehan and P.W.7 Mst. Khalida are the ;randmother and sister, respectively, of Mst. Sajida P.W.5 and are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. They supported the version given by Mst. Sajida P.W.5. P.W.8 Muhammad Munir S.I.
Investigated the case and after completing [egal formalities, he submitted the challan in the Court of law.
5. Muhammad Ashraf appellant took up the plea of alibi. He stated that because of the threats offered by his co-accused to the mother and grand-mother of Mst. Sajida P.W.5, as Aslam brother of Mst. Sajida was not desisting from his immoral advances towards Azra, daughter of Ashraf, he has been falsely implicated.
' Karam Khan's defence was also total denial. He stated that on the day of occurrence, only Aksar and Nawab appellants had gone to the house of Aslam, where his mother and grandmother were present, they asked them to prevail upon Aslam to mend his ways and threatened them that otherwise they would kill him.
' Aksar Khan and Nawab Khan made similar statements as were made by Muhammad Ashraf and Karam Khan. The appellants also gave evidence under section 340, Cr.P.C. No evidence was produced in defence.
6. The trial Court believing the ocular account fortified by the medical evidence, concluded that the charge against the appellants stood proved and sentenced them as referred above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the eyewitnesses are close relations inter se, and they had a motive to falsely implicate the appellants on account of love affair which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was going on between Mst. Azra, daughter of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and Muhammad Aslam, brother of Mst. Sajida P.W.5. He has also assailed the finding of the trial Court that the F.I.R. Was lodged very promptly, hence should be believed as gospel truth.
' The learned counsel further submitted that Muhammad Khan's presence at the scene is doubtful, because in the Karwai Police, his name is not mentioned. He also submitted that a false case has been fabricated by the P.Ws. In order to save the skin of Muhammad Aslam from the wrath of the appellants on account of threats mentioned earlier.
8. I find no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, because in the present case, the occurrence took place at 4-30 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged at 8-30 p.m. The same day by Mst. Sajida Bibi P.W.5, after covering a distance of 15 k.m. In a cold weather of December. The evidence given by these ladies, who are relations being grandmother and sister of Mst. Sajida is straightforward. They are the natural witnesses of the occurrence, being the inmates of the house/Haveli from where Mst. Sajida was lifted by Muhammad Ashraf appellant and their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of certain discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel, such as the witnesses deposed in Court that the appellants laid her (Mst. Sajida) in the Chowk, but this fact was not mentioned in the FIR., i.e., the word `chowk' does not exist there.
He has also pointed out that there is improvement in the evidence of P.W.5 Mst. Sajida and the grandmother, i.e., Mst. Nur Jehan P.W.6 to the fect that the grandmother put Chaddar on her body and in that condition she had been taken home, but this fact is not stated in the F.I.R. He has also referred to the non-production of Muhammad Khan P.W. According to the learned counsel, the fact of non-producing this witness is fatal to the prosecution, because he was the only male member who could have proved the factum of the offence.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions and find that these are very minor and insignificant discrepancies, which do occur in the evidence of most natural and truthful witnesses due to lapse of time.
' The crux of the matter is that Mst. Sajida P.W.5 was molested by the appellants while Muhammad Ashraf appellant also trespassed into the house and C lifted her from there and took her to the rear side of her house where she was made naked in the very presence of her near and dear relatives.
' The learned counsel for the appellants had taken up a legal objection that even if the whole of the prosecution case is accepted as gospel truth, still no case under section 354-A, P.P.C. Is made out against the appellants.
' For facility of reference, newly-added section 354-A, P.P.C. Is reproduced as under:- "354-A. Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and strips her of her clothes and, in that condition, exposes her to the public view shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liabi to fine."
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellants in the present case, Mst. Sajida Bibi P.W.5 was not exposed to the public view, as none of the witnesses produced by the prosecution has deposed that apart from the mother, sisters and grandmother of Mst. Sajida, anyone else has seen her in a naked condition. He has referred to the statement of Mst. Sajida Bibi P.W.5 in the F.I.R. Where the word `chowk' has not been mentioned and the place is the back side of the house which is not a public place, hence she has not been exposed to public view. The prosecution has not produced a single witness, other than the family members who could prove that Mst. Sajida Bibi was subjected to molestation in the public view and would attract the provisions of section 354-A, P.P.C.
Which is of very serious and grave in nature. He has also submitted that none of the neighbours or other persons of the locality has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge under section 354-A, P.P.C.
11. There is no case-law on this point, in order to understand the meaning of the word `public view' one has to refer to the ordinary dictionary meaning. In Webster's Dictionary, 'public' means:- "belonging to, concerning, or pertaining to the people of a nation, state or community, as a whole-- known by, or open to the knowledge of all or most people, as he will make this information public."
The word 'public' as defined in section 12 of the Pakistan Penal Code includes any class of public or community. In section 144(3), Cr.P.C. The word 'public' includes members of the public already in the locality as residents as well as visitors from outside. The word 'view' as explained in Webster's Dictionary IF means:- "a seeing or looking, as in inspection or examination, in sight."
' Thus the words 'public view' mean and include seeing or looking by the people of a nation, state or community, as a whole.
' From the evidence, it appears that this ingredient of the offence 'exposes her to the public view' is missing in the present case.
' I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the penal provisions are to be construed strictly and liberal construction is not permissible. Offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. Is not proved unless the woman is exposed to public view. In the present case, the evidence brought on the record falls short of this definition, because neither Mst. Sajida Bibi P.W.5 was exposed to any other member of the public except the accused and inmates of the house, nor there is evidence on the record that the so-called place was a public place.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the offence committed by the appellants falls fairly and squarely under section 354, P.P.C., as the most essential ingredient of the offence, that is, 'public view' is lacking in the present case, in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The appellants are, therefore, convicted under section 354, P.P.C. And are sentenced to two years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default six months' R.I. The fine if recovered be paid to Mst. Sajida as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
' Muhammad Ashraf has also been comicted under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years'
R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. His conviction and sentence under section 452, P.P.C. Is maintained, but the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.3,0(X) or in default to undergo one year's R.I.
' The appellants shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The substantive sentence's of Muhammad Ashraf shall run concurrently.
' The record shows that the appellants were arrested on 11-12-1986 and by now they have already undergone the sentence as imposed on Aksar Khan, Karam Khan and Nawab Khan. They be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. However, they are afforded two months time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court. .