The appellants alongwith three others were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Jhang on the charge of abducting and dragging Mst. Dullan complainant (P.W.4) from the Bazar of village Mudhani Jut, Police Station Mochiwala, to their own house in the same village and in that process stripped off her clothes. On the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment, dated 3-12-1989, the appellants were convicted under section 354-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default to further undergo two years' R.I. Each. They were also convicted under section 342, P.P.C. And sentenced to six months' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.500 or in default to further undergo one month's S.I. Both these sentences were directed to run concurrently and the appellants were given the benefit of section 382-B, 0. v r
2. The prosecution story was that one-and-a-half years prior to the occurrence taking place on 4- 7-1988, Mst. Daullan complainant had quarrelled with Mst. Bakhtan appellant, who is wife of Nusrat appellant and sister of Haq Nawaz alias Hakam appellant. During this incident Sannat Ahmad, the son of Mst. Daullan, had abused and pushed out Mst. Bakhtan appellant. The incident was, however, not reported to the police. To avenge this insult, the appellants alongwith three others on the aforesaid date at about 7 p.m. Caught, hold of Mst. Daullan complainant when she was returning from the Bazar to her house alongwith her nephew Bashir Ahmad P.W. And dragged her to the house of Nusrat appellant through a window, as a result of which she suffered some injuries and her `Chaddar' fell off. As a consequence thereof, she became naked. Her hue and cry also attracted Khan son of Muhammad (P.W.5) and Khan son of Sher P.W.b, who rescued her and one of them gave his turban to cover her body while taking her back from the house of Nusrat appellant to her house in the village.
3. The matter was reported to the police in the evening of 6-7-1988 by Mst. Daullan herself and a case was registered against the appellants and their three co-accused under sections 36$ and 354, P.P.C. Initial ,which was later converted into under section 354-A, P.P.C.
4. During the course- of investigation three co-accused, namely, Shqr father of Mst. Br, and her two brothers Sarfraz and Zulfiqar were found innocent. However, on the completion of investigation all the six accused were sent up for trial `to the Court of Session. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as sever, witnesses. Out of them, Mst. Daullan (P.W.4),. Khan son of Muhammad (P.W.5) and Khan son of Sher (P.W.6) gave the eye-witness account of the occurrence. Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.3) had deposed about the seizure of blood-stained clothes of Mst, Daullan by S.I. Rana Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.7), who gave the details of investigations. Dr. Muhammad Salim Zaheer had niedicaiiy examined Mst. Daullan and proved her nine simple injuries as detailed in her medical report (Exh.PA.). Munsab Ali Muharrir A.S.I. (P.W.2) had recorded the formal F.I.R. The appellants and their acquitted co-accused, while recording their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating circumstances figuring in the prosecution evidence and, alleging their false implication, professed innocence. They produced no defence.
5. On the conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the' manner aforesaid, while three co-accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt. The appellants have filed this appeal.
6. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of section 354-A, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the facts of the case because she was not stripped naked at public place nor she was exposed to the public view. According to him, the offence under section 342, P.P.C, was also not made out against the appellants because there was no evidence on the record to show that she was illegally detained in the house of Nusrat appellant for any specific duration. In his opinion; even if the prosecution story, as it is, be accepted a,, true, even then, at the most, a case under section 354, P.P.C. And under section 341, P.P.C. Was made out and the maximum sentence for the former offence is two years and fine while for the latter offence is one month S.I. It is urged that the incident was exaggerated and three innocent persons, who were so found by the police and were ultimately acquitted by the trial Court, were maliciously roped in and this fact rebounds on the veracity of the prosecution case. Sannat Ahmad, the son of Mst. Daullan, who according to the learned counsel, was cited as a witness of the motive, was not produced during the trial to prove this fact, probably for the reason that he had abused and pushed about Mst. Bakhtan appellant in the previous incident. Finally, it is contended that there was unexplained delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. And this fact indicates deliberation and concoction.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the impugned judgment, He is of the view that the prosecution case under section 354-A, p,P.C. As also under section 342, P.P.C. Stands amply proved against the appellants and they deserved no leniency as they caught hold of an aged lady from the Bazar and dragging her into their house through a nor window not only caused injuries on her person but in that process her clothes were also removed which were later recovered from the possession of the appellants stained with blood. According to him, the removal of her clothes must have exposed her body to a large number of people of the village who had gathered on seeing the incident.
8. From the facts related in the F.I.R., to which the complainant was duly confronted to nullify the effect of the certain improvements made by her during her deposition before the trial Court, it appears that when she was caught up by the appellants from the bazar and brought to their house, till then she was fully clad in the clothes she was wearing and if the same were torn and her Chaddar was removed, it was only at the time when 'she was through in from the window and had reached the courtyard of their house. Thus her body had not been exposed to the public view at the public place and these facts do not constitute the offence punishable under section 354-A, P.P.C. Rather they made out a- case under section 354, P.P.C. Similarly the duration of her confinement in the house of the appellant was so short that it could attract the application of section 341, P.P.C. And not of section 342, P.P.C.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to attack the impugned judgment with a view to entail clean acquittal of the appellant oil benefit of doubt but I do not feel impressed by his argument of false implication, delay in the registration of the case and omission to produce complainant's son Sannat Ahmad as a witness of motive. The injuries on the person of Mst. Daullan complainant provide ample corroboration to her statement as also to the statement of two other eye-witnesses.
10. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellants under section 354-A, P.P.C. And under section 342, P.P.C. Is set aside and they are collected under section 354, P.P.C. And under section 341, P.P.C.. They are sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.500 each or in default to three months' R.1. Each. The fine, if realized, shall be paid as compensation to Mst. Daullan complainant.
Similarly, they are convicted under section 341, P.P.C. And sentenced to one month's S.I..Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Since by this time they have already undergone a little more than two years' imprisonment, both as under-trials as well as convicts and are on bail, they shall not be re-arrested, except on the non-payment of fine, which they shall deposit within one month.
11. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the learned Sessions Judge for further necessary action regarding the recovery of fine and its payment as compensation.