JUDGMENTNAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, CJ.- Prosecutrix Mst Safia Bibi caste Christian' was divorced by her husband IIyas Masih and she used to live with her father Allah Rakha in village Dholan. She was asleep in her house one night along with her two minor sisters, Mst As a aged about 8/9 years and Mrt. Shazia aged about 5/6 years. At about 2/3 in the night appellant Rana Muhammad Ishtiaq entered the house and were her up and asked her to go with him in the room. She asked the appellant to go and she would follow him but when he entered the room she bolted the door and' awoke her sisters but the appellant managed to break open the door and fled away. The prosecutrix narrated this occurrence to her father when he came back from Sialkot. However, they did not make any report on account of their family honour. Subsequently she went to the house of Rana Khalil along with her sister Mst As a for sweeping where appellant Rana Ishtiaq was present who cut jokes with 1$ and in reply she abused him whereupon the appellant threw brick bats on her injuring her on the back, finger of right had and wrist Previous to that the appellant had subjected the prosecutrix to Zina-bil- Jabr 4/5 times. Mst Safia Bibi went to Police Station Walmdo District Gujranwala on 303.1993 and submitted a written complaint of the aforesaid occurrences where F.I.R. No. 78/93 was recorded on the same day.
2. The prosecutrix was medically examined by P.W.1 lady Dr. Nasreen , Akhtar on 313.1993, according to which she was pregnant of 26 weeks. The appellant was arrested on 5.6.1993 by P.W3 'Ghulam Abbas Inspector. After investigation he was sent up for trial before Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala Camp at Kamoke who charged him under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Six witnesses were examined by the State in proof of the prosecution case. The appellant made a deposition under section 342 Cr.P.C, but he neither produced any defence nor made and any deposition on oath. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 10(3) of the Hudood Ordinance and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to suffer 30 stripes. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by the appeal in had.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length who also took me through the entire record of the case.
5. The prosecutrix was divorced by her husband about 2 or 2 1/2 years before the occurrence and she was living with her father. It is also a fact that the lady doctor found her pregnant on 313.1993 with a fundal height of 26 weeks. This would mean that prosecutrix Mst Safia Bibi became pregnant about 6 and 1/2 months before she recorded F.I.R in the Police Station. Most probably the report was lodged when signs of her pregnancy had become clearly aparant. In the F.I.R, she directly charged the appellant for subjecting her to rape. The two occurrences disclosed in the F.I.R, about the appellant going to herself on a night and after some days abusing her and injuring her in the house of Rana Khalil were also supported by her sister Mst As a who appeared as P.W.4. In rebuttal there is only the solitary statement of the appellant, that also under section 342 Cr.P.C. He denied, the commission of the offence. He further stated that the previous husband had access to her and she was also married Id George Masih and if there was pregnancy it was a result of cohabitation with her second husband or her previous husband. He also deposed as follows:- "My father paid Rs. 20,000/- to Allah Rakha, the father of Mst Safia Bibi PW, as an advance to hire him as his servant. After receiving said amount, Allah Rakha did not adopt the service of my father.
On the demand of said amount from Allah Rakha, quarrel ensued. There is criminal litigation between my father and one Hanif, who is my maternal uncle and master of Allah Rakha mentioned above. At the instance of Allah Rakha and Muhammad Hanif mentioned above and due to the pressure of publication in news paper and to save Mst Safia Bibi, herself of her ill-deeds, I have been falsely involved in this case.
6. In her cross-examination the prosecutrix admitted that she had contracted a second Marriage with one George Masih. She also denied the suggestion that her pregnancy was caused by her previous husband who remained on visiting terms to the family even after divorcing her. On the contrary the appellant failed to substantite his aforesaid deposition about money and this question was also asked from the prosecutrix and she denied that her father had received anymoney from the appellant.
7. At the time when the prosecutrix recorded the F.I.R, she was 26 weeks pregnant and she directly charged the appellant for subjecting her to ana- bil-jabr for many times and the pregnancy was a result of those incidents. It has also come on the record that the prosecutrix is the daughter of an artisan in the village and she was herself a menial worker. It is common knowledge and judicial notice of which can also be taken that in our rural society the feudal lords are very powerful All the menial workers and artisans of a village are at the mercy of the land lord. They have to obey every command of the feudal lords and specially their women folk lead a miserable life because they are a free source of enjoyment to the feudal lord. Of all the residents in the village, the prosecutrix has directly named and charged the appellant for subjecting her to zina-bil-jabr which would clearly establish that the appellant was guilty-of subjecting her to rape. Not only that but a suggestion was made to the prosecutrix in cross-examination that the appellant had subjected her to sexual intercourse with her willingness but she denied it This circumstance would also show that the appellant was having some sexual connection with the prosecutrix and as he entirely denied it in his deposition under, section 342 Cr.P.C, the only presumption which can be legitimately drawn is the truthfulness of the accusation levelled against him by the prosecutrix.
8. After very carefully considering all the aspect of the matter I have come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the appellant and I confirm the findings of the learned trial Judge. The appellant was rightly convicted under section 10(3) of the Hudood. Ordinance and the sentence also appears to be appropriate. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C.