' Mushtaq Ahmad alias Baga, Muhammad Amin and Mahboob alias Buba, were convicted under section 354, P.P.C. And each sentenced to one year's R.I., and further sentenced to three months' R.I.
Each, on conviction under section 342, P.P.C., on 21-6-1990, by Malik Muhammad Javed Naseem, M.I.C., Gojra. Having failed in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Teic Singh, Rao Muhammad Hayat Khan, the convicts have preferred the present revision petition. A private complaint under section 354-A/342, P.P.C. Was lodged with the Ilaqa Magistrate, Gojra, by Zareena Bibi against Mushtaq Ahmed, Muhammad Amin, Mahboob, Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Iqbal on 9-9-1986, with the allegation that the respondents (in the private complaint) had caught hold of Zareena, dragged her to the village Chowk, torn her shirt and stripped her naked in presence of several people. She had gone out in the fields in company of her sister Parveen Akhtar, about 2-1/2 months before, at 8/9 p.m. The incident was seen by complainant's mother Mst. Mehmooda Begum and one Muhammad Siddique Arain. Parveen Akhtar saved herself by escaping from the scene hurriedly.
2. In the inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C., statements of Zareena, Parveen Akhtar and Mehmooda Begum were recorded on 9-9-1986, 4-11-1986 and 12-1-1987. They were regularly examined and cross-examined in trial afterwards. The learned trial Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge had been convinced about the genuineness of the incident on the strength of the evidence led in trial by the complainant. I have carefully gone through the entire record; and I must say that I do not find myself persuaded, in the least, to believe the complainant and her witnesses, who are her sister and mother. Siddique Arain, belonging to their brotherhood, may also be a relative, but he has not been produced. It is astonishing that although according to the complainant a very serious and monstrous attempt had been made by the accused at outraging her modesty, or at least there was a public display of indecency towards her, she remained in state of inaction, and filed the private complaint, according to her own showing, about 2-1/2 months after the incident.
Casually it has been stated that the police had not registered a case against the accused, on being approached by her. If it was a fact, she could have access to the higher authorities of the police, or had the option to make a private complaint, without wasting time, so that those persons, who had been so rough and obscene in their treatment towards her, did not move about freely and were brought to book without unnecessary delay.
3. It is stated by Mst. Zareena that against her, as also two other persons, Saulat and Faqeer Muhammad, a case had been registered with the police in the morning, following the night of occurrence, and that in the case under section 294, P.P.C. They had been acquitted. It is however, to be noted that event of acquittal in a criminal case does not always serve to show that it was a false case. The prosecution may fail in getting hold of eye-witnesses of an occurrence, or the Court may not be satisfied with the veracity of the witnesses produced; and the accused earn acquittal also by being given benefit of doubt. The manner in which all that happened would leave little doubt about the fact that Zareena had been found in company of Saulat, after sunset, in an objectionable posture, and as is averred she had been dragged to the village Chowk. She was taken round in the streets of the village and in the morning she was handed over to the police, along with her male "partners". Had the accused intended only to offend against her modesty, or had a mind to insult and humiliate her, she could straightaway be divested of her dress, wholly or partially by the accused and exposed to public view. There was no point in taking her from lane to lane or keeping her in illegal confinement, as has been alleged throughout the night. Muhammad Amin who is accused in this case, was a complainant in the case under section 294, P.P.C. It is also conceded by the complainant here that after the present occurrence, Mushtaq accused had got another case under section 324, P.P.C. Registered against them. There is thus no doubt about the fact that against Mushtaq Ahmed and Muhammad Amin, A Zareena had a strong grudge and grievance and a well-defined motive to involve them in a false case to counterblast the other ugly case of the same night, in an effort to show to the world that no such incident, as has been alleged by the accused had occurred, involving Zareena and Saulat, having illicit liaison with each other, and having assembled in a field of crop, for sexual enjoyment, with another person Faqeer Muhammad, to keep a watch.
4. Mehmooda Begum P.W.3 says that she was present in her house, when her daughters Zareena and Parveen had left for the fields to ease themselves. It is then not understood as to how could she become eye-witness of the occurrence. No independent witness from the village has been produced, although even according to the complainant's own showing so many people of the village had gathered and had seen her in semi-naked condition, in the Chowk. They had, according to her, saved her from further humiliation, from which it would follow that they were her sympathizers; and as such they must not have hesitated to appear in Court to depose in her favour. The fact that none from amongst them has been examined as a witness would indicate that nobody was prepared to lend support to insinuations of the complainant directed against the respondents.
5. The incident reported by Mst. Zareena does not sound believable and probable. The accused after having committed mischief with Mst. Zareena, were .Supposed to have disappeared from the scene and not produced her before the village Lambardar or taken her through the streets of the village. Manifestly and undoubtedly, Mst. Zareena had been spotted in company of her paramour, Saulat, and this had offended the on-lookers and they had caught hold of her, as also Saulat, brought her to the village, exposed both of them to the village people, and then produced them before the police on the following morning.
' There appears to be no truth in the allegations leveled by the complainant against the petitioners and their companions. Judgments of the two Courts below do not appear to be well-reasoned and do not make out a sound case for conviction of the accused. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners are set aside; and they are relieved of their bail bonds. The revision petition is accepted.
Revision .