' JUSTICE RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN (MEMBER).--- Abdul Aleem son of Muhammad Nawaz, Abdul Munam son of Fazal Din and Khalil Ahmad son of Murecd Khan all Kanju by caste resident of village Khadali, Tehsil and District Rahim Yar Khan were convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default to suffer further six months' R.I. Under section 354, P.P.C. By the learned Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan Camp at Rahim Yar Khan on 21-12-1992. It was directed that in case of recovery of fine, it shall be paid as compensation to Mst. Raham Mai under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. However, co-accused of the appellants, namely Nawaz, Abdul Razaq, Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Ramzan and Habib Ullah were acquitted of the charge presumably by giving them the benefit of doubt vide the same judgment. The convicts have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No,96-SAC/L of 1992 before this Court. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No,1-SAC/L of 1993 against the acquittal of the five aforesaid respondents. It is prayed in the State appeal that the sentence so awarded to the convicts/appellants being inadequate may be suitably enhanced under section 354-A, P.P.C. By convicting them thereunder. The State appeal was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 23-2-1993. These appeals shall be decided together because they arise out of the same judgment.
2. The facts are that Mst. Raham Mai (45) lives alongwith other members of her family in village Khudali. Her husband Rashid Ahmad is living in the village as a retired school teacher. The complainant runs her domestic affairs. The women of the family observe Parda. The complainant party had taken some agricultural land on mortgage at a distance of about one mile from their village. The cotton crop was standing on the said land. On 22-10-1992 at about 8-00 a.m. Mst.
Raham Mai, her husband Rashid Ahmad, her grand-daughters namely Mst. Jamila Bibi and Mst.
Rehana Bibi alongwith other women were going to their fields in order to pluck cotton bolls. Mst.
Raham Mai and Jamila Bibi had veiled themselves. When they reached near the Katcha road, quite close to the land of Yar Muhammad son of Qadir Bakhsh ahead of them, Khalil Ahmad, Abdul Aleem, Habib Ullah, Abdul Munam, Abdul Razzaq, Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Nawaz had been sitting in an ambush while armed with various weapons in the cotton field of Muhammad Nawaz. On seeing, they at once came out from the field. They shouted that they would take revenge of Khurshid Ahmad for having developed illicit liaison with a girl of their family. In order to frighten them, Khalil Ahmad fired in the air. Abdul Aleem and Khalil Ahmad removed the veil from the head of Mst. Raham Mai. They also tore the shirt and Shalwar of the lady. Her husband was pushed away by Muhammad Akhtar accused. Mst. Jamila Bibi was caught by Habib Ullah from her hair. Similarly Muhammad Ramzan caught the hair of Mst. Raham Mai. On an alarm, Yar Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor and many other people of the village came and witnessed the occurrence. The accused ran away by declaring that they had taken the revenge of their insult. The motive was that Abdul Razzaq and other had suspicion that his daughter had developed illicit relationship with Khurshid, a son of the complainant. The husband of the complainant had been trying to convince Abdul Razzaq that the allegations levelled against his son were false. However, the accused party did nurse a grudge against the complainant party. It was stated that ornaments of the ladies also fell down at the place of occurrence on account of the attack of the accused party and were misplaced.
3. Sardar Muhammad A.S.I. P.W.9 recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. On statement of the complainant. Site plan Exh.P.G. Was prepared by him. Mst. Raham Mai produced her Shalwar P.1, shirt P.2 and Veil P.3 before the Police Officer. These articles were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Hatchet P.4 was produced by Abdul Aleem on 5-11-1992 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. Abdul Munam produced a Sota, Exh.P.5 the same day which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. He took Mst.
Raham Mai and Mst. Khanzadi to D.H.Q. Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan where they were subjected to medical examination on 25-10-1992. Sharafat Ali Si. P.W.8 arrested Abdul Munam and Abdul Aleem accused on 5-11-1992. He also arrested Khalil Ahmad and Muhammad Akhtar accused on 10-11- 1992.
4. P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal medically examined Mst. Raham Mai (45) at 10-00 a.m. On 25- 10-1992 and found the following injuries:--
(1) A swelling 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. On the top of scalp not pulpy.
(2) A bruise 2 x 2 c.m. On the back in lumber region. The area is blackened. No redness, movement non-painful.
(3) A bruise 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the right forearm. The movements of the forearm at the elbow and wrist joint are normal.
(4) A bruise 3 x. 2-1/2 c.m. On the upper medial surface of the right thigh. The area is blackened not red. The movement normal.
(5) A bruise 2 x 1/2 c.m. On the upper medial surface of the left thigh.
' The movements of the thigh non-painful. The area is blackened.
' The doctor opined that the injuries on Mst. Raham Mai were simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon.
5. Mst. Khanzadi (35) was examined by the same doctor on the same day. The following injury was noted by him on her person:--
(1) A swelling 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the dorsum of the middle phalanx of left middle finger. The movement of the finger is non-painful."
' According to the doctor, the injury was simple and caused by a blunt weapon. The suggestion of the defence that the injuries on the person of two ladies could be caused on account of fall was repelled.
6. Eye-witness account was furnished by Abdul Ghafoor P.W.4, Mst. Jamila Bibi P.W.5, Mst. Khanzadi P.W.6 and Rashid Ahmad P.W.7. The prosecution did not examine Mst. Rehana, Tamil Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif by declaring them as unnecessary. Yar Muhammad P.W.
Was given up on the ground that he had been won over by the accused.
7. Abdul Aleem denied the allegations levelled against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He deposed that Khurshid, the son of the complainant attempted to commit rape with the daughter of Abdul Razzaq, his uncle. He continued to state that the family of Khurshid wanted to enter into a compromise which offer was, however, turned down by them and in order to put pressure, they were implicated in this false case. He pleaded his innocence. The remaining accused also made almost similar statements. D.W.1 Ghulam Qadir and D.W.2 Muhammad Ramzan were produced in support of the defence plea. D.W.1 is father of Abdul Ghafoor P.W. He declared that his son was a liar and that he had already asked him not to depose falsely in criminal cases.
However, he did not say anything about the incident in hand. D.W.2 stated that no incident as alleged by the prosecution took place. He claimed to have remained till 1-00 p.m. On the land adjoining to the land of the complainant.
8. Learned counsel contends forcefully, that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. And that no explanation was given by the complainant to cover the delay. It is submitted that there was no evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. According to him, the medical evidence would negate the whole ocular account. Learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No,1-SAC/L of 1993 contend that the prosecution succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused. It is maintained that there was no enmity between the parties and as such there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version in the given circumstances. Learned counsel argued that Rashid Ahmad being a retired school teacher is a respectable witness and it was not expected of him that he would go so low to use his women-folk for falsely implicating the accused.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also read the record with utmost care. We hold that the prosecution did succeed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Mst. Raham Mai and Mst. Khanzadi were injured. P.Ws. Mst.
Raham Mai materially supported the prosecution version. She went to the fields to pluck cotton- bolls in the company of Mst. Khanzadi her daughter, Mst. Sharifan Mai, Mst. Rehana, Mst Jamila her grand-daughters and her husband Rashid Ahmad alongwith other women of the village. Jameel, Shakeel and Rauf Shah were also following them. According to the lady, Hafiz Nawaz, Razzaq, Ramzan, Habib Ullah, Khalil, Munam, Aleem and Akhtar were hiding themselves in the standing cotton of Yar Muhammad. Khalil was armed with a pistol while Aleem was carrying a hatchet with him. Habib Ullah and Munam were armed with sticks. On Lalkara of Hafiz Nawaz, the accused party opened an attack upon them. She deposed that accused suspected that her son Khurshid Ahmad had developed illicit intimacy with the daughter of Razzaq accused. The accused, therefore, wanted to take revenge of that illicit intimacy. She stated - that Khalil fired in the air to terrorize the complainant party. He removed her veil. Aleem accused tore her shirt from her chest and back.
Munam accused removed her Shalwar. Aleem and Munam threw her clothes and veil on the ground. Her husband was manhandled and pushed aside. The pigtails of Mst. Raham and Mst.
Jamila Bibi were pulled by the accused. Munam accused pulled the hair of Raham Mai while Habib Ullah pulled the hair of Mst. Jamila Bibi. This statement of Mst. Raham Mai was materially corroborated by Mst. Jamila Bibi, Abdul Ghafoor, Mst. Khanzadi and Rashid Ahmad P.Ws. Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal P.W.3 conducted the medical examination of Mst. Raham Mai and Mst.
Khanzadi P.Ws. On 25-10-1992. He found as many as five injuries on Mst. Raham Mai. A swelling 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. Was found by him on the top of scalp of Mst. Raham Mai. Injury No,2 was found on the back in lumbar region. The injuries Nos.3 to 5 were found on the right forearm, right thigh and left thigh respectively. The doctor also found an injury on Mst. Khanzadi. These injuries on the P.Ws. Would corroborate the ocular account. It is, therefore, established that Abdul Aleem, Abdul Munam and Khalil Ahmad did participate in the occurrence. As a matter of fact they wanted to take revenge of an earlier incident in which Khurshid had tried to outrage the modesty of Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Abdul Razzaq. The motive would also lend support to the prosecution case. There is no previous enmity between the parties. The evidence of P.Ws. Does inspire confidence and as such is worth reliance. The presence of the ladies has to be accepted because the defence despite their lengthy cross-examination could not shake them. The evidence of injured Mst. Raham Mai and Khanzadi cannot be doubted in the given circumstances. It is common in the village life that the women do go out to work in the fields alongwith their male partners.
10. This being so, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants were rightly convicted on the basis of overwhelming evidence. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have been persuaded to reduce their sentence because it appears to us to be harsh in the circumstances of this case. The sentence is accordingly reduced from two years to one year's R.I. The sentence of fine shall however be maintained. With this modification in the sentence, their appeal is dismissed.
11. So far as the State appeal is concerned, we are convinced that Muhammad Nawaz, Abdul Razzaq, Muhammad Ramzan, Habib Ullah and Muhammad Akhtar respondents were rightly acquitted because there was no evidence available on record to connect them with the commission of the crime. We do believe that the occurrence had taken place but the complainant party had made an attempt to implicate as many people from the accused side as possible. This being so, there is no substance in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.