' This revision petition under section 435 read with section 439, Cr.P.C. Has been filed against the order, dated 23-2-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused person in case F.I.R. No,76/87 registered at Police Station Cantt. Sialkot under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are; that a case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered at Police Station Cantt., Sialkot at the behest of Muhammad Iqbal for the abduction of the petitioner against Sabir Masih and others.
After the investigation when the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted the petitioner was cited as an accused and her name was shown at Serial No,7 in Column No,3 of the challan-sheet.
The petitioner was arrested and was sent to jail where she remained till 21-4-1987. She was also medically examined. During the investigation, it was reported that actually the petitioner had herself eloped for the satisfaction of her sexual urge.
3. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Where once she exonerated the accused persons, but in spite of that challan was submitted in the Court and the petitioner was cited as one of the P.Ws. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order, dated 23-2-1989 has summoned her as an accused person.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner eloped or was party to the sexual intercourse with her free will or consent with the co- accused. It is argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted illegally when he summoned the petitioner as an accused to face the trial. In the second statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has supported the F.I.R. Saying that she was forcibly abducted and subjected to rape by the accused persons.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by both sides and have also gone through the record. Admittedly the F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal, brother of the petitioner, for the abduction of his sister by Sabir Masih accused and others. When the first statement of the abductee was recorded she was irk the custody of the co-accused and she, therefore, was pressurised to make concession towards the accused. Even she desired to go to Darul Aman and she was arrested by the police under the apprehension of her elopement.
' I find that the petitioner has second time been examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. And she has fully supported the F.I.R. And has implicated the accused of her abduction and committing rape upon her. After this statement, the police cited her as a witness and her name was removed from the list of the accused persons. The main stress laid by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that when once the petitioner was arrested as an accused person so she should be summoned as an accused person and not as P.W. I also find that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner eloped or was party to the sexual intercourse with her free will or consent. Muhammad Iqbal the lodger of the F.I.R. Has been examined as P.W.5 who has fully supported the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was forcibly abducted by accused and was subjected to Zina-bil- Jabr. The petitioner appeared as P.W.6 and has corroborated the prosecution in this behalf. In view of these statements there is, thus, no other evidence on the record to implicate the petitioner as an accused person. -7. In view of what has been discussed above, I set aside the order dated 23-2-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and while accepting this revision petition, direct that the petitioner be treated as prosecution witness only and not as an accused in the case.
Revision .