' JUSTICE SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR (MEMBER).---Nadeem Iqbal alias Nawab Sahib was tried under sections 11 and 10(3) of Ordinance VII of 1979, by the learned Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials No,II, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 25-2-1993, convicted and sentenced him as under:--- "Under section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979: ' Imprisonment for life, with thirty stripes and fine of Rs,20,000 or in default to undergo three years'
R.I. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the mother of Mst. Nazia i,e, the complainant.
Under section 18 read with section 10(3) of Ordinance VII of 1979: ' Twelve and a half years' R.I. With thirty stripes.
' The substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The convict has filed the present appeal against his convictions and sentences.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in the statement Exh.PD of Mst. Surriya (P.W.3), which was recorded by Akhtar Ali S.I. (P.W.8), in Sabzi Mandi, Lahore, is that the husband of the complainant is employed in a Factory. He leaves for his duty in the morning and returns home late in the evening. The complainant has three daughters and two sons. On 9-11-1992, at about 4-30 p.m., her daughter Mst. Nazia (P.W.4), aged seven years, went to see her girl friend Guria in Street No,3, Data Nagar, Ravi Road, Lahore, but she did not return for a long time. The complainant alongwith her neighbour Ghulam Hussain P.W.5 went in search of Mst. Nazia in Street No,3 and saw that Mst. Nazia was coming out of the house of the appellant while weeping with a five-rupee currency note in her hand. The complainant asked her as to why she was weeping, whereupon Mst.
Nazia told her that the appellant caught hold of her from her arm in the street and took her into his room. He put off her Shalwar, put his finger in her vagina and also kissed her. Thereafter he tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her and put his penis into her mouth. He licked her vagina which was bleeding. Mst. Nazia told the complainant that she started weeping whereupon the appellant put his hand on her mouth. Mst. Surriya (P.W.3), Ghulam Hussain (P.W.5) and Asghar Ali (given up witness) were still standing in front of the house of the appellant, when he came out of his house armed with a dagger. He threatened the complainant that in case she complained against him, it would not be better for her, because he had already served imprisonment in jail. The prosecution story further is that the complainant returned to her house with Nazia and waited for her husband.
Thereafter, Mst. Surriya alongwith Mst. Nazia, left for Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore. She met Akhtar Ali S.I. (P.W.8), near Sabzi Mandi, Lahore, who recorded her statement Exh.PD and sent the same to the police station. Muhammad Hanif S.I. (P.W.7)' recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 at Police Station, Ravi Road, Lahore, at 8-25 p.m. The same day.
' Akhtar Ali S.I. Proceeded to the spot. He prepared the rough plan Exh.PE. On 10-11-1992, he got medically examined Mst. Nazia by Lady Doctor Noreen Rasul P.W.1. On 11-11-1992, he arrested the appellant and got him medically examined by Doctor Shamim Akhtar Khan P.W.2 on 12-11-1992. On 13-11-1992, the appellant got recovered dagger P.1 which was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.PG. After completing the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.
3. Dr. Noreen Rasul, P.W.1, medically examined Mst. Nazia P.W.1 on 10-11-1992 and found the following injuries on her person:---
(1) A contused swelling, 5 c.m. x 4 c.m. On inner upper left leg.
(2) A contused swelling 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. On inner mid right leg.
(3) Laceration in labia minora on lower junction. Bleeding was present.
' The lady doctor observed that hymen was intact, vagina did not admit tip of fmger and there was no mark of stain of semen or blood on the clothes. Three swabs around the vagina were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis of semen, blood and seminal grouping. Vide report Exh.PB of the Chemical Examiner, the swabs were not stained with semen. However, they were stained with blood.
' Dr. Shamim Akhtar Khan P.W.2 examined the appellant and opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
4. The appellant when examined denied the prosecution allegations and made a detailed statement, which reads:--- "My family members told me to marry, but I refused. They were compelling me to marry for the last seven years. I quarrelled with my family members and I shifted my house in Street No,3, Mohallah Gunj Bakhsh Park, Ravi Road, Lahore. I used to prepare ornaments and supply it in the market.
Ladies used to visit me with regard to my profession. It was my misfortune that Mst. Surraya visited me for the preparation of a set. I prepared the set and handed it over to Mst. Surraya. I was given rupees five thousand as advance. Mst. Surriya promised to pay remaining amount of rupees forty- five thousand in two three days. Mst. Surraya tried to blackmail me. Elder daughter of Mst. Surraya, whose name I do not know, came to me and told me to prepare a silver set for her. The daughter of Mst. Surraya told me that she was in need of another thing. I enquired from her about it and she replied that she wanted to marry me. I told her that I would answer it after pondering over it. She took an oath that she would be faithful to me. I saw her crossing roofs of several persons. I declined to marry her. I demanded the remaining amount of rupees forty-five thousand, and it led to a quarrel. For this reason, I have been involved in a false case."
' The appellant neither appeared as his own witness nor produced any evidence in defence.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Lady Doctor Noreen Rasul P.W.1. She examined Mst. Nazia P.W.4. Dr. Shamim Akhtar Khan P.W.2 examined the appellant. Mst. Surriya P.W.3, complainant supported the prosecution version. Her statement was corroborated by Mst.
Nazia P.W.4, the victim and Ghulam Hussain P.W.5. Akhtar Ali S.I. Investigated the case.
' The trial Judge believed the prosecution version, discarded the defence plea of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police, which makes the prosecution version doubtful. He further contended that father of Mst. Nazia P.W., though present at the time when statement of Mst. Surriya P.W.3 was recorded by the police, but he did not appear as a witness, which shows that he was fair enough not to support the cooked up and false case against the appellant. He has also assailed the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses on the ground that there are material discrepancies in their statements made before the police and the Court. He also urged that the medical evidence belies the ocular version. On the contrary, in view of the defence plea, the case against the appellant is false, cooked up and fabricated one.
7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the appellant took up a frivolous, false and scandalous plea that the elder daughter of Mst. Surriya P.W.
Wanted to marry him and he flatly declined to oblige her and due to this fact this case has been framed against him. In addition to that, the appellant also stated that he prepared ornaments for Mst. Surriya P.W, mother of Mst. Nazia P.W.4, worth Rs,50,000 and on the demand of balance amount of Rs,45,000 by the appellant, he has been involved in this case. As per evidence, Mst.
Surriya P.W. Is the wife of a cobbler. It is beyond comprehension how could she place an order with the appellant for the alleged purchase of ornaments worth Rs,50,000 in spite of meagre financial recourses, thus defence plea is without any foundation. He further urged that in the absence of any animosity between the complainant and the .Appellant, there is no justification to discard the straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution.
8. We have gone through the record minutely and have carefully examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
' There is no background of enmity between the parties, neither any animosity was suggested nor proved. Mst. Nazia P.W.4 (a child of seven years of age) in her statement has given a very lucid and apt description of the events which happened with her. The defence has failed to shatter the credibility of evidence of this child witness in spite of lengthy and uncalled for cross-examination.
Mst. Surriya P.W.3 and her neighbour Ghulam Hussain P.W.5 have no ostensible motive or reason to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular version furnished by Mst. Nazia P.W.4 that she was subjected to the perverse sexual lust of the appellant, the laceration found in labia minora on lower junction of the girl further corroborates the version given by her. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsel here and there appearing in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses do not materially effect the intrinsic value of their deposition.
9. The crucial point in this case is whether Mst. Nazia P.W.4 was abducted by the appellant and thereafter he tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her or not. From the statement of Mst. Nazia P.W. It stood proved that the appellant abducted her from the lane while she was on her way to the house of her girl friend Guria. To prove the offence of abduction the requirement of distance is immaterial.
It is not necessary that the person abducted should be taken to a longer distance. According to the evidence of Mst. Nazia P.W.4, while she was going in the lane, the appellant pulled her to the room on the first floor of his house, removed her Shalwar and also his trousers and thereafter he tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. In these circumstances, the offences under sections 11 as well as 18 read with section 10(3) of Ordinance VII of 1979, stood proved.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with the direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.