' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--- Complainant Ijaz Ali Shah was married to appellant Mst. Tauqeer Jehan in the year 1976. During the wedlock four daughters were born, out of whom three are alive and they arc Mst. Zunaira ljaz aged about 12 years, Mst. Zaira Ijaz aged about 10 years, and Mst. Bushra ljaz aged about 8 years. The complainant divorced the appellant in the year 1988 whereafter the latter married acquitted accused Muhammad Ramzan. In the year 1990 the complainant came to know that the appellant and her husband Muhammad Ramzan had illegally detained his three daughters in their house and had also stopped them from going to school whereby their names had been struck off the school roll. The complainant filed a case in the Court of Guardian Judge for obtaining custody of the girls. Thereafter, the complainant filed a writ in the Lahore High Court for illegal detention of his daughters. The High Court ordered that the three daughters be admitted in Junior Cambridge of Madrasa-tul-Binat, Lahore and they should be kept in hostel. The three daughters were admitted in the hostel on 19-1-1991. The hostel was going to be closed on 31-5-1991 due to summer vacations and the complainant gave an application on 25-5-1991 before the Guardian Judge for the custody of the daughters for the period from 30-5-1991 to 8-7-1991 of summer vacation, whereupon the learned Guardian Judge ordered that the three girls will remain in the custody of appellant Mst. Tauqeer Jehan from 30-5-1991 to 8-7-1991 and from 9-7-1991 to 16- 8-1991 they will remain with the complainant. On these orders the Bailliff of the Court handed over the custody of the girls to the appellant on 30-5-1991. The appellant with a calculated moved submitted an application to S.P. City, Lahore on 30-5-1991 wherein she inter alia charged the complainant and his brothers Irshad Ali Shah and Islam Ali Shah for subjecting the girls to Zinabil- Jabr with the collusion of the Warden of the hostel at about 10/11 p.m. On the night of 29-5-1991. F.I.R.
No,123/91 was recorded on the basis of this allegation in Police Station Mozang, Lahore on 3-6-1991 and all the three girls were medically examined. However, the charge was found false as the girls had not been subjected to any sexual intercourse and the case was dismissed. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a written complaint to Police Station Mozang, Lahore on 6-6-1991 for proceeding against the appellant, her husband Muhammad Ramzan and her cousnel Ch. Manzoor Hussain under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. After the registration of the said case and after investigation the appellant and her 2 co-accused were sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who charged them under section 7 of the Qazf Ordinance to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Muhammad Ramzan and Ch. Manzoor Hussain and convicted appellant Mst. Tauqeer Jehan under section 11 of the Qazf Ordinance and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to suffer 20 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Appellant Mst. Tauqeer Jehan has challenged her conviction and sentence by the appeal in hand. Criminal Appeal No,331/L of 1992 was also submitted by the State to challenge the acquittal of accused Muhammad Ramzan. Criminal Revision No,70/L of 1992 was also submitted by complainant ljaz Ali Shah to challenge the acquittal of accused Muhammad Ramzan and Ch. Manzoor Hussain and for enhancement of the sentence of the appellant Mst.
Tauqeer Jehan. Since both the appeals and the criminal revision petition have arisen from the same judgment, they are being disposed of by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No,276/L of 1992 in hand.
4. The aforesaid facts were not denied by any of the parties except that the appellant had admitted that application Exh.P.B. Contained her signature but its contents were not in her hand and she denied having executed such an application. The appellant was a lecturer of Islamiat in Government Islamia College for Women, Cooper Road, Lahore. She is a highly qualified woman and being a lecturer of the Islamiat she must have known the implications of imputation of such an allegation against any person. From the very beginning her contention was that the contents of the application Exh.P.B. Were not in her hand. The appellant also specifically denied having added the following Urdu sentence at the end of the said application:- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. Since the appellant had from the very beginning denied the execution of the application Exh.P.B., it was imperative that her specimen handwriting should have been taken for comparison with the contents of the said application but no such course of action was adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On account of the specific denial of the appellant regarding contents of the application it was all the more necessary for arriving at a correct decision whether the contents of the application were in the hand of the appellant or not, to get her specimen handwriting and to refer both the writings to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. As the matter stood before the Court, there was an allegation by the complainant that through the contents of the application the appellant had falsely accused him of the offence of committing Zina with his own daughters while on the contrary the appellant had denied having executed the application. In such a case the bare allegation of the complainant should not have been accepted by the learned trial Court. The appellant in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had clearly stated that the contents of the application Exh.P.B. Were not in her hand except that it bore her signature. In this respect the following answer to question No,8 of her examination is worth perusal:-- "An application Exh.P.W.5/A which, on my request, has been shown to me today, is neither in my hand. However, it bears my signatures in Urdu. I had, no doubt, submitted an application before the S.P./City but it did not contain allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr with my daughters."
' But no importance was attached to this statement.
6. An effort was made by producing prosecution evidence to show that the appellant had accused the complainant of false charge of Zina and in that respect Ikramul Haq was produced as P.W.2, Mian Sharafat Ali as P.W.4 and Zulfiqar Ahmad Cheema, S.P. City as P.W.5. P.W.2 Ikram-ul-Haq stated that on 31-5-1991 the parties and the other witnesses were present in Police Station Mozang, Lahore where the appellant and her second husband accused Muhammad Ramzan had alleged that the complainant Ijaz Ali Shah and his two brothers Islam Ali Shah and Irshad Ali Shah had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with minor daughters of Ijaz Ali Shah in the hostel of Madrassa-tul-Binat School at night on 29-5-1991. Similar' was the statement of P.W.3 Irshad All Shah, P.W.4 Mian Sharafat Ali and P.W.5 Zulfiqar Ahmad Cheema, S.P. City Lahore. The perusal of the testimony of these three witnesses would show that they had accused the appellant and her second husband accused Muhammad Ramzan for levelling a false charge of Zina against the complainant. If this evidence was trustworthy then the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have believed it in respect of both the appellant and her second husband but on the contrary her second husband accused Muhammad Ramzan was acquitted. The evidence in respect of the charge was the same against both of them but it was believed against one and discarded against the other. This was also a violation of the rule of consistency.
7. It is also very strange that the opinion of P.W.6 Lady Dr. Zakia Mumtaz had been obtained on 31-5- 1991, according to which all the three girls had not been subjected to sexual intercourse but in spite of that the F.I.R. Was recorded and then it was concealed. This would also show the overzealousness of the police as also some ulterior motive. We are of the considered opinion that efforts were being made to create evidence against the appellant by these under-hand methods.
8. The minute perusal of prosecution evidence would disclose that none of the aforesaid witnesses had said anything about the application but they had deposed that in their presence the appellant and her second husband accused Muhammad Ramzan had levelled oral accusation of Zina against the complainant. Except P.W.5 Zulfiqar Ahmad Cheema, S.P., City Lahore no other witness had stated anything about the application. This would also show that there appeared to be two occurrences of the alleged accusation, one by the application Exh.P.B. And the other by oral deposition on 31-5-1991. This circumstance had made the matter very doubtful. In this respect it is interesting to note that the complainant was alleged to be present in the police station on 31-5- 1991 wherein oral accusation was made against him. However, in his written complaint to the S.H.O.
Police Station Mozang, Lahore the complainant did not make any allegation of the aforesaid oral accusation and made the application Exh.P.B. As the basis of his complaint.
9. The appellant had specifically denied having made such an accusation against the complainant. She is a highly qualified woman in the subject of Islamiat and she could not have been so careless as to make such a false charge against the complainant as would entangle her in the offence of Qazf. Even otherwise it is unthinkable that a father of girls and his brothers would be accused of such a heinous offence.
10. For the aforesaid reasons we have arrived at the conclusion that the State had failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently the appeal is accepted. She is acquitted of the offence for which she was convicted and sentenced. She is on bail. Her bail bond stands discharged.
11. We would dismiss the State appeal as well because we find that the impugned judgment in so far as it pertains to the acquittal of accused Muhammad Ramzan does not call for any interference by this Court. Since we have accepted the appeal and have acquitted the appellant, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise. The criminal revision petition No,70/L of 1992 is also dismissed.