' This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 20th February, 1997 passed 11y learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan whereby he convicted the appellant under section 18 read with section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. And 15 stripes. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also allowed to the appellant.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Mst. Siddiqan P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. On 2-1-1996 with Police Station Saddar Rahim Yar Khan complaining that on 1-1-1996 at 2-30 p.m. In the area of Chak No,54/P the appellant Khadim Hussain made an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her in the fields where she along with Mst. Najma P.W.3 was cutting the grass. On the alarm raised by her P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Siddique (given up P.W.) were attracted to the' spot whereupon Khadim Hussain appellant escaped from there. Muhammad Ashraf S.-I. Conducted the investigation of the case and after arresting the appellant on 21-4-1996 got him examined by Dr. Qamarul Qayyum as to his potency. Challan was thereafter submitted in the Court.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case namely P.W.1 Mst. Siddion (complainant) who supported the contents of the complaint, P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf an eye- witness, P.W.3 Mst. Najma another eye-witness both of whom corroborated the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.4 M un ir Ahmed, Inspector of Police who recorded formal F. I. R . Exh . P. A. , P.W.5 Dr. Qamarul Qayyum who examined the appellant as to his potency and P.W.6 Muhammad Ashraf, S.-I. Who investigated the case and submitted the challan in the Court.
4. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations against him and asserted that the case against him was false at the instance of Muhammad Siddique with whom he had altercation 10/12 days before the occurrence. The appellant did not opt to make statement under section 340(2); Cr.P.C. But stated that he would produce defence evidence which was however, not produced.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:--
(i) that F.I.R. Has been belatedly lodged which casts doubts on the veracity of the case;
(ii) that there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence which have not been taken notice of by the learned trial Court.
' The following contradictions have been pointed out:
(a) P.W. I stated that the field in which they were cutting the grass was of Allah Rakhio Nagra whereas P.W.3 in the cross-examination has stated that the field belonged to Ghulam Muhammad Nagra.
(b) P.W.1 says that there were two companions of the appellant whereas P.W.2 says that there was none with the appellant while P.W.3 has stated that there was one other person with the appellant.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the pointed out discrepancies on behalf of the appellant are immaterial and do not in any manner affect the prosecution case.
He has submitted that the field belongs to Nagras and the name of the owner might be differently known to the witnesses. As regards the companions of the appellant he submitted that it may well be that when P.W.2 had reached the spot the companions of the appellant had already fled away.
7. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the delay of one day in lodging the report has been explained in the F.I.R. By the complainant that she was stopped from lodging the report the same day as the relatives of the appellant were trying to prevail on her not to report the matter to the police.
8. Lastly the learned counsel for the State has submitted that no dent has been made in the case of the prosecution which warranted conviction even on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix as nothing has been brought on record to impeach her credibility.
9. Having given consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant have no force. These have been squarely met with by the learned counsel for the State who has correctly pointed out that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Has, been explained in the F.I.R. Itself and that the contradictions pointed out are not material and do not affect the prosecution case. It may further be observed that these minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses do occur and it should not be expected that a photographic version which is corroborated in all respects will be given by the witnesses. The learned counsel for the State has correctly pointed out that P.W.2 may have reached the place of occurrence when the companions of the appellant had already left while P.W.3 in the helter-skelter of the situation may have seen one person only who was with the appellant.
10. The bald defence asserted by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also does not have merit inasmuch as no woman of Pakistani Society would expose herself to the infamy of the attempt of Zina-bil- Jahr with her on a trifling altercation between the appellant and a distant relation of the complainant. I I . In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will, however, be afforded the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C. As directed by the trial Court. Since the sentence of C stripes has been abolished by virtue of Notification dated 15-4-1996, the same will not be carried out.