Muhammad Alam, his brother Nazir and Mst. Rani, the were of the said Nazir were tried for the alleged commission of - offences punishable under sections 10 and 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979, section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under section 392, P.P.C.
2. The learned Sessions Judge at Sialkot acquitted all these three persons of all the above- mentioned charges vide his judgment, dated 8-10-1984 but found that according to the facts which stood proved on record, Muhammad Alam accused was guilty of an offence punishable under section 363, P.P.C. And after convicting him accordingly, he sentenced him to suffer five years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or to undergo one year's R.I. In default of payment of this fine.
It was further directed that an amount of Rs.4,000 out of the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Mst.
Bashiran Bibi, the mother of Mst. Rakhshinda Bibi, the alleged kidnappee, as compensation. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also allowed to the said convict.
3. Muhammad Alam convict challenges the said conviction and sentences recorded against him through the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant frankly concedes that the evidence is available on record to support the conviction under section 363, P.P.C. Reference in this connection may be made to the statements of Mst. Rakhshinda Bibi, the alleged kidnappee (P.W.5), the statement of Manzoor Hussain (P.W.6) in whose house she was residing alongwith her mother after the death of her father and finally the statement of Mst. Bashiran Bibi (P.W.7) who is mother of Mst. Rakhshinda P.W.
5. The learned counsel, however, submits that the offence in question was only a technical in nature, as the alleged kidnappee was only 2/3 months below of sixteen years of age and thus prayed that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant who had served more than 1- 1/2 years of imprisonment be reduced.
6. The submission of the learned counsel is not without force.
7. From the medical evidence available on record as also from the other evidence produced by the prosecution, it appears that Mst. Rakhshanda P.W. Had not been taken away without tier consent and the appellant has to suffer a punishment only because she was a few months short of sixteen years of age.
8. The offence is, therefore, only technical in nature and I am of the view that the imprisonment already suffered by the appellant which is more than 1-1/2 years, would serve the ends of justice.
9. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded under section 363, P.P.C., I reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him to the term of imprisonment already suffered by him. The sentence regarding imposition of payment of fine, the direction regarding the payment of compensation and the allowance of the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As recorded by the learned trial Court are, however, maintained.
10. The appellant is on bail. He is allowed one month's time to pay the amount of fine failing which he shall be taken into custody to suffer the imprisonment directed in default of payment of fine. In case the fine is paid within the period abovementioned and if not so paid, then after the sufferance of the imprisonment ordered for non-payment of fine, the appellant shall stand discharged from his surety/bail bonds.
11. This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.