' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Hameed Ahmad petitioner complainant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Federal Shariat Court dated 11-11-1991 whereby appeals of the respondents against their conviction under section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 carrying sentence of imprisonment for life, 30 stripes and a fine of Rs,10, 000 for each of them were allowed and they were acquitted of the charges.
2. The prosecution version according to the F.I.R. Was that on 13-12-1987 Hameed complainant and other members of the family were sleeping in their residential room as usual. At about mid-night there was a knock at the door. Mst. Shamaila aged 15 years, daughter of the complainant, opened the door and went outside. Soon after the complainant and his sister's son Zahir Ahmad who was staying as a guest' went out and found Sarfraz alias Sharfo, Naseer alias Baggo, Iqbal alias Balo armed with .12 bore guns and Shamash alias Shamman armed with carbine standing in the courtyard. They had overpowered Mst. Shamaila. The complainant and Zahir Ahmad tried to rescue her but Sarfraz alias Sharfo warned them that they would be done away with in case they stepped forward. Thereafter, they forcibly lifted Mst. Shamaila and went away.
' The motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that Sarfraz was a vagabond type of person. The complainant had forbidden him from standing in the chock over which he got annoyed.
' The complainant reported the occurrence to the police on 9-5-1988 i,e, more than five months after the alleged occurrence. Shamash Pervez respondent was arrested on 13-5-1988, Sarfraz on 18-6-1988, Zafar Iqbal on 28-6-1988 and Naseer Ahmad on 9-8-1988. After the usual investigation they were sent up to stand their trial.
3. At the trial Hameed complainant and his nephew Zahir Ahmed supported the prosecution version. Mst. Shamaila was never recovered.
4. The learned trial Court relying on the testimony of the complainant and Zahir Ahmad P.W.
Convicted and sentenced the respondents as mentioned above.
' On re-examining the evidence the learned Federal Shariat Court observed as under:-- "As admitted by Hamid Ahmad his house is situate in the Abadi of the village which has a population of about 10,000 peoples. Hamid Ahmad had a licensed gun with him like his three brothers who lived nearby. The inhabitants of the village belonged to Hamid Ahmad's brotherhood.
He has not given any indication of his hostility towards the habitants of the village. In such circumstances it looks strange that neither he nor Zahir Ahmad made noise or raised any alarm when the appellants were in his house or even after they had taken away his daughter. One of the sons of Hamid Ahmad is a Police Head Constable and another is a school teacher. Nothing was done either by Hamid Ahmad or any other member of his family to report the matter to the police with reasonable promptitude. Silence on the part of Hamid Ahmad in informing the police for a period of over more than 5 months has not been satisfactorily explained. In normal circumstances he would have raised a hue and cry and would have taken definite steps. With the aid of his relatives and others with whom he had some sort of relationship to bring the culprit to book especially when he knew them. His inaction in this direction lends some support to the stance taken by the learned counsel for the appellants that in all probability Mst. Shamaila had gone to her own accord with someone else and out of shame her father and other family members had kept silence." .The learned Judges also took notice of the fact that Ehsan Ullah P.W.3 nephew of Hameed, had sworn an affidavit on 12-5-1988 stating that Hamid Ahmad had given him a different version of the disappearance of Mst. Shamaila and involved the appellants just on suspicion. It was observed that the contents of the affidavit had practically given a clean chit to the accused.
5. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of the complainant and Zahir Ahmad was rightly accepted by the trial Court as they had no motive to falsely implicate the respondents and in that view of the matter - there was 110 justifications for interference with the judgment of the learned trial Court by the Federal Shariat Court. However, the learned counsel could not point out any infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Federal Shariat Court for recording a finding of acquittal.
Admittedly the F.I.R. Was lodged more than five months after the alleged occurrence and Ehsan Ullah had sworn an affidavit referred to in the impugned judgment. The mere fact that a different view of evidence was also possible would not make it a case for interference with the order of acquittal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. .