This revision is directed against the appellate order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dated 24-2-1985 whereby he modified the order of the learned trial Court, dated 20- 2-1985 by acquitting the petitioner under sections 325/452, P.P.C. But maintaining his sentence under section 451, P.P.C. To undergo R.I. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500 or to undergo additional R.I. For 15 days in default of payment of fine and the petitioner was also sentenced under section 323, P.P.C. To undergo 1 year. R.I. With a fine of Rs.500 or in default of payment of fine R.I. For 15 days. He was further ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000 to Mst: Bakhtawar the complainant or in default of the same one month R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant Mst. Bakhtawar lodged the F.I.R. To the effect that on the eventful day, she was present in her house when the petitioner climbed over the roof and entered in her house. It is further alleged that the petitioner asked her to surrender herself for rape. She refused, on which the petitioner dropped down her, as a result of which she received injuries on her person, including fracture of her nasal bone, and then on the report of the complainant F.I.R. Was recorded under sections 452/325, P.P.C.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses, Mst. Bakhtawar (complainant), Taja and Muhammad Bashir P.Ws. Gave eye--account of the occurrence. The accused denied the allegations and produced two witnesses namely Zakir Hussain and Allah Yar in his defence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the same points which were addressed before the learned lower appellate Court that the F.I.R. Is delayed by six days which has not been properly explained; that no X-Ray was produced, on the basis of which fracture of nasal bone could be proved and the eye-witnesses are close relations of the complainant, hence their uncorroborated testimony cannot be believed.
5. The learned counsel for the State has adopted those reasons which prevailed with 'the learned lower appellate Court while maintaining the conviction and submitted that there is concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner, hence this revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. Admittedly, the complainant and the eye-witnesses are close relations but mere relationship per se is no ground to discard the confidence inspiring evidence of these two persons as Taja and Muhammad Bashir P.Ws. Are natural witnesses of the occurrence being inhabitants of the locality. Mst. A Bakhtawar who received injuries has fully supported the prosecution case and the occurrence took place in the day time, hance it is not a case of mistaken identification of the accused. The learned trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate Court rightly believed the prosecution case on merits, hence no case on merits is made out.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the end, forcefully argued that the petitioner has undergone the substantial portion of his sentence, so his sentence may be reduced to one already undergone and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner into prison after the lapse of six years.
8. I have considered the above-said argument and I find substantial force in the submission that after the lapse of six years, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner behind the bars, hence while maintaining the conviction and dimissing the revision I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to one already undergone but I maintain the sentence of fine as imposed by the learned lower appellate Court on both the counts with all consequential effects. The petitioner should pay the compensation as ordered by the learned lower appellate Court. With this modification, this revision stands disposed of.