' JUSTICE NAIMUDDIN (CHAIRMAN)---This acquittal appeal, under section 13 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance XXV of 1991) is from the judgment dated 3-9-1991 passed by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Chaudhry Muhammad Shareef, Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trial, Multan, Dera Ghazi Khan and Bhawalpur Divisions at Multan.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Muhammad Akhtar was tried by the learned Special Judge under section 354-A, P.P.C., and acquitted by the judgment impugned in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that Maqsood son of Saeeda Begum the complainant, had abducted the sister of the respondent/accused twice and was facing two separate abduction cases. In order to satisfy the sense of revenge the respondent was on the look out to outrage the modesty of Mst. Saeeda Begum. On 18th March, 1991 Mst. Saeeda Begum and her son Nadeem had gone to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Jampur to meet Maqsood her son where she was also to serve her son with meals. At 4-30 p.m. In the area of Bhutta Colony when they were returning home, Mst. Saeeda Begum went ahead and her son went to bring vegetables, the respondent came in front of Mst. Saeeda Begum and grappled with and overpowered her and held her breasts. Mst. Saeeda Begum attempted to extricate herself from the clutches of the respondent. He tore her shirt and also removed her veil. At her alarm her son Nadeem and Naseem P.Ws. Came there. The respondent ran away.
4. The husband of Mst. Saeeda Begum, who is a conductor in G.T.S., reached home late in the evening after performing his duty. Mst. Saeeda Begum narrated the incident to him and she went to the Police Station alongwith him on the next day and recorded the complaint, Exh.PA. F.I.R. Exh.
PA.-1 was recorded on the basis of the complaint, Exh.PA. The respondent was arrested. The torn shirt was also taken into custody. After completion of the investigation, challan of the case was submitted.
5. In support of the case the prosecution examined Saeeda Begum, her son Muhammad Nadeem and one Naseem Akhtar (P.W.2).
6. The respondent, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge and stated that the complainant party had been attempting to make a compromise with them regarding the arrest of Maqsood son of the complainant, involved in the abduction cases, and on their refusal, this case has been lodged against him in order to put pressure on his parents.
7. The learned Advocate-General has taken us through the impugned judgment and we have also gone through the evidence. We have heard him at length.
8. The main reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in acquitting the respondent were that Muhammad Nadeem the son of the complainant, stated that they had gone to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Jampur in order to meet his brother Maqsood. But the complainant contradicted this statement by stating that they had gone to the police station to see Maqsood there. It is in evidence of Naseem Akhtar, the only independent witness, that the spot is surrounded by populated area and there was lot of traffic near the spot. He further stated that he did not know the name of the accused at the time of this incident. His name was told by the complainant. He also stated that more than 20 or 25 people had gathered at the spot when he reached there. But he could not name any one of them. On perusal of his evidence it seems that he had not seen the incident. So far as the other two witnesses are concerned, namely, the complainant and her son, they were interested witnesses being inimical towards the respondent because their son and brother was involved in the abduction case.
9. Besides the eye-witness the prosecution produced the torn shirt of Mst. Saeeda Begum.
According to Muhammad Nadeem son of the complainant, the shirt was torn from the right side as well as from the frontal upper side but the learned trial Judge, on inspection of the shirt, found the later part of this statement as wrong because the shirt was not torn from the( frontal upper part. So far as the complainant is concerned, she stated that her shirt was torn from both sides of shoulders and also from the right side but in the cross-examination, she clarified that she had informed the police that her shirt had been torn from the shoulders and the right side. But the learned Judge did not find the shoulders and right side mentioned in Exh.P-1. On this question the Court found that the shirt of the complainant was torn has not been proved. It has been found unstitched on both the shoulders and the right side as also stated by the respondent in his statement under section 342,Cr.P.C. He observed that there is a marked difference between unstitched and torn shirt. He further observed that to him it appears that stitched shirt has been unstitched purposely to strengthen the weak case. The other weighty reasons which weighed with the learned trial CoWI were that her statement that she was molested was not supported by her son or Naseem Akhtar, P.W.2, and that the complaint was lodged after more than 20 hours.
10. The learned Judge after reviewing the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish even a case under section 354, P.P.C., muchless under section 354-A, P.P.C. And accordingly acquitted the respondent from the charge framed against him under section 354-A, P.P.C. And ordered his release. We uphold his findings and judgment.
11. The learned Advocate-General has not been able to point out any infirmity. The judgment also does not suffer from any misreading or non-consideration of any material evidence.
12. We, therefore, find no force in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it.