JUDGMENT M. MAHBOOB AHMED, C.J.- This appeal is directed againsi judgment dated 3-12-1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Chicha Watni District Sahiwal whereby the appellants were convicted u/S 18 read with Section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance. 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) and sentenced to 5 years R.I. And 15 stripes each.
2. The case was registered against the appellants vide FIR Xo. 57 of 1995. Dated 1-4-1995 under the afore-mentioned Sections 18 and TO (3) of the Ordinance recorded on the statement of Mst.
Shamim alias Shama P.W. 3.
The victim who is resident of Chak No. 24/14-L. The statement was made by the afore-mentioned prosecutric before AS1 Ashiq who was on patrol duty near Murad More. The occurrence according to the FIR took place at 12.00 noon on 31-3-1995 in the area of Chak No. 19/14-L at a distance of 3 miles from the police station. The FIR was registered on 1-4-1995 at 6.30 p.m. In Ex.P.A. And Ex. P.A/1 the statement of the complainant and formal FIR it has been mentioned that the husband of the complainant had gone to earn his livelihood and therefore, the complainant was living with her father Humayoon in Chak No.24/14-L. The allegation was that on the day of occurrence the complainant and her younger sister Nasreen aged about 10 years and her brother Fayyaz Ahmed aged about 8 years went to Chak No.l9/14-L for paying homage to the Dafbar of Baba Shah Nawaz.
On return the brother and the sister of the complainant went to pick 'bair' from a tree in the wheat crop. The complainant for some time waited on the metalled road and after some time started towards the wheat crop to fetch them but at a short distance the two appellants Chiragh and Ashraf who were known to her caught her from arms, took her in i.e the wheat crop and forcibly laid her on the ground. Chiragh accused placed his hands on her mouth while Ashraf tried to forcibly open the string of her Shalwar and attempted to commit zina with her. The complainant struggled and managed to* raise alarm to save her honour. The alarm attracted her brother and sister who also raised alarm which attracted Liaqat P.W. 2 and Ghulam Muhammad. The appellants managed to escape. The occurrence was narrated by the complainant to her father the same night on his return. She did not go to the police station the same day as she was alone and the matter was reported the next day. The challan against the appellants was put up in the Court and on their claiming trial the prosecution examined 4 witnesses namely Sakhawat Khan. P.W. 1, who recorded the formal FIR Ex. P.A. On the statement of complainant, Liaqat Ali P.W. 2 an eye-witness. Mst.
Shamim P.W. 3 the victim and Ashiq AS1 P.W. 4 who recorded the statement of Mst. Shamim Ex. P.A/1 and partly investigated the case.
3. The statements of the appellants u/S. 342-Cr,P.C. Were recorded wherein they denied allegations and merely took the plea that the case against them was based on enmity. They did not opt to make statement u/S. 340 <2)Cr,P..C. And also declined to produce any defence evidence. On conclusion of the trial and after hearing the arguments of the parties and examination of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them and convicted them u/S. 18 read with Section 10(3) of the Ordinance and sentenced them as mentioned above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended:- Firstly, that keeping in view the prosecution evidence the case ^ against the appellants at the best falls u/S. 354 PPC and as such the comiction u/S. 18 read with Section 10(3) of the Ordinance is not warranted. He relied in this regard on Yaseen u. State t PLD 1983 FSC 53) and Anwarul Haq v. The State (PLD 1983 FSC 234); Secondly that Liaqat P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 the victim are related to each other and their evidence should not be relied upon. It was also urged in this connection that Liaqat is also a chance witness only: and Thirdly, that the recording of statement of the victim at a place other than the police station creates doubts as regards the prosecution version.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that a bald plea of enmity has been taken by the appellants in defence which is not in an}' manner established on record and therefore the prosecution version should be taken as correct.
6. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the State that a serious attempt to commit zina with the complainant had been made by the appellants and not only her Shalwar was being removed forcibly but her shirt was also torn and she would have been subjected to zina but for the timely intervension of the witnesses. He submitted that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and referred to Shoukat v. The State, reported as PLD 1982 FSC 179. a Full Bench judgment where in the similar situation the attempt was held covered by Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1979.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the controversy involved and having examined the evidence on record I find that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court are unexceptionable. A correct finding has been recorded that the appellants had made serious attempt to commit zina with the prosecutric and therefore the appellants are guilty under Section 18 read with Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1979. The sentence awarded is also not excessive and does not call for interference.
8. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the contention that the case falls u/S. 354 PPC and not u/Ss. 18 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, are distinguishable on facts in that in the case in hand the shirt of the victim had been torn, she was forcibly laid on the ground, one of the accused put his hands on her mouth while the other tried to open the string of her Shalwar which shows that but for the intervension of the PWs who reached on the alarm raised by the victim, her brother and sister the appellants would have fulfilled their design. The very fact that the two appellants who are strong young males took a .Lonely lady with force and made the attempt as mentioned above leaves no room for doubt that there was a serious attempt to commit zina With her. Applying the Full Bench judgment cited by the learned counsel for the State i.e. PLD 1982 SC 179 to the facts of the case in hand there appears no reason to hold that the intention was of molestation or that the facts can constitute molestation.
9. By virtue of Section 511 PPC attempt to commit an offence have been made punishable and therefore the word "attempt" will have to be considered in each to its attendant facts and circumstances. The word "attempt" as defined in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary means any act that can fairly be described as one of a series which, if uninterrupted and successful would constitute a crime". The word has also been defined in other dictionaries in almost similar terms as above.
10. It may also be observed that in a community of Muslims like ours the attempts of the nature as mentioned above can in no manner be termed molestation" as mentioned in Section 352 PPC. The word "molest" has been defined in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary as "to annoy". Similarly in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary molestation has been defined as the action of molesting; annoyance, disturbance, vexation". Now keeping in view' the meaning assigned to-the word attempt and to the word molestation, can it be said that the manner in which the prosecutric was taken to wheat field where she wras forcibly held by two strong young men, laid on the ground with one of them shutting her mouth and the other forcibly trying to open the string of her shahvar and in the struggle her shirt was torn wras only a molestation i.e. Annoyance or vexation or an interference wfth her in a hostile wjay? The w'hole series of the above acts to my mind clearly lead to the only answer and legitimate interference that the appellants had the clear intention to commit the offence under w'Hich they have been convicted.
11. In an Islamic Society in w'hich the Islamic social and cultural values are being mauled upon, such a mild interpretation of words which constitute serious offences as in the case in hand would only give an impetus to immorality and pollution of social values. It also exposes the innocent women-folk of the country to grave hazards of criminal assaults by unscrupulous and bad characters of the society. In view of the growing rate of crimes especially in the field of sex there is no escape from interpreting the relevant provisions of law in a strict manner and to apply them firmly in order to achieve peace in the society and to create an atmosphere in the country wrhich ensures respect, honour and dignity for female'sector of the country which are their inalienable rights as conferred by Quran. Sunnah and the Constitution. l2. In view' of the foregoing discussion I have no hesitation in upholding the umpugend judgment.
Resultantly this appeal being without merit is dismissed.