' Saleem son of Faiz Muhammad is the appellant in this appeal. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, by judgment, dated 7-5-1990 in Hudood Case No,27/7-89 under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to ten years' R.I. 30 stripes and a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default to suffer R.I. For one year more. Being aggrieved, the present appeal was filed. I have heard Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjam, learned counsel for the State and Mr. MA.
Zafar, learned counsel for the complainant. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the record.
2. F.I.R. No,38 was registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad on 25-11-1988 at 10-00 p.m., on the report of P.W.2 complainant Nazir Ahmad (father of the abductee Nusrat Parveen) that at about 8-00 p.m. Mst. Sabah Sanam (acquitted accused) came to his house and took the abductee to the house of her maternal-uncle Saleem (the appellant). According to the complainant, as the abductee did not return, after one hour the complainant went to the house of the appellant where mother of the appellant told him that the abductee had gone to Samanabad accompanied by the appellant, Naeem and acquitted accused Mst. Sabah Sanam. The complainant then started a search for his daughter in the vicinity when Mian Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Akhtar told him that they had seen Nusrat Parveen (the abductee) being taken away in a car to Latif Chowk, Ghulam Muhammad Abad. The said persons also informed the complainant that they had tried to chase the car on motor-bikes, but the accused fled away. After investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant, his brother Naeem and appellant's niece Sabah. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, acquitted co-accused Naeem and Sabah, but convicted the appellant under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced him to R.I. For ten years and thirty stripes and a fine of Rs,5,000. In his judgment, the trial Court found that the abductee had eloped with the appellant and they had been committing Zina with each other. The charge or abduction was not established according to the trial Court and as such all the three accused were acquitted of the said charge. The appellant had produced "Nikahnama" showing his marriage with the abductee, taking the stand that she is his legally wedded wife. The abductee admitted her signature on the Nikahnama, but stated in her evidence that she was forced to sign this document. The trial Court came to the conclusion that evidence of Nikah Khawan and witnesses to the Nikah had not been produced. The Nikahnama was not believed and the appellant was convicted under section 10(2) of the Ordinance, as observed.
3. Civil litigation was also pending between the appellant and the abductee Mst. Nusrat Parveen.
She had filed a suit against the appellant for jactitation of marriage whereas the appellant had filed a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the family suits were decided in favour of the appellant by the Family Court, Islamabad, vide judgment, dated 21-12-1993. The abductee filed appeals against the said judgments before the Appellate Court and, on 26-4-1995, when this appeal was taken up, it was informed that both the family appeals filed by the abductee have been allowed by the Appellate Court and that the appellant intended to file a writ petition before the Lahore High Court.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been suffering the miseries of criminal and civil litigation for the last six A and half years, the F.I.R., having been registered on 25-11-1988, during which period the appellant has remained confined for some time as an under trial prisoner and has also remained in custody after his conviction till he was out by this Court. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, learned counsel for the appellant further informs, on instructions of the appellant who is present, that after the family appeals were allowed in favour of the abductee Mst.
Nusrat Parveen, she has remarried. Dr. Khalid Ranjha has. Submitted that the appellant has a good case, but in the circumstances, where Mst. Nusrat Parveen remarried and the appellant desires to bring the criminal as well as civil litigation to an end so that the appellant may pursue his life afresh as a normal human being and so also Mst. Nusrat Parveen, who has now remarried. In the circumstances, on instructions, Dr. Khalid Ranjha does not press. This appeal on merits, but states that a lenient view may be taken and the sentence may be appropriately reduced in the facts and circumstances mentioned earlier. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the request for reduction of sentence. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned counsel for the complainant has no instructions.
5. As a result, Criminal Appeal No,193/L of 1990 is dismissed on merits as not pressed. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellant by the impugned judgment is, however, reduced to the sentence already undergone as an under-trial prisoner and then after conviction. The sentence of fine of Rs,5,000 is reduced to Rs,1,000 and, in default, the appellant will suffer S.I. For one month more. The amount of fine will be deposited/paid by the appellant within one month from today. The sentence of thirty stripes is mandatory under section 10(2) of the Ordinance. It is informed by Dr. Khalid Ranjha, on instructions of the appellant, that the appellant, who is on bail, is working and residing at Karachi and the request is made that the sentence of stripes may be ordered to be executed at District Jail, Lahore rather than at District Jail, Faisalabad, where the appellant has not friends or relatives. This request is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. The appellant will present himself before the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore, for execution of the sentence of thirty stripes alongwith certified copy of this judgment and the sentence of whipping shall be inflicted on the same day when he presents himself before the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore, and, after infliction of the sentence of whipping, a certificate to that effect will be issued so that the same may be presented before this Court. It is further ordered that the appellant shall present himself before Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore within thirty days from today so that the mandatory sentence of thirty stripes can be executed. In case the appellant does not present himself for execution of the sentence within thirty days from .Today before the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore, he will be taken into custody for execution of the sentence. On presentation of the certificate of the execution of the sentence of whipping and receipt of payment of fine, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall stand discharged.
Sentence reduced.