' The appeal filed by Arshad Javed son of Sher Gul, resident of Naka Khurd, Police Station Injra, Tehsil Jand, District Attock is directed against the judgment, dated 5-6-1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Attock whereby he has convicted him under section 451, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof three months' R.I. He has further convicted him under section 354, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof three months' R.I. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to him.
2. Briefly stated the case of prosecution as narrated by Mst. Famhida Begum in her statement Exh.P.B. Recorded on 10-11-1994 is to the effect that on 2-11-1994 when she was all alone in her house as her mother and brother Muhammad Jalil had gone to the forest and the main gate of Haveli was open, the appellant/accused entered the Haveli without her permission while she was washing utensils in the courtyard and forcibly tried to take her inside the room. During the grapple she raised cries which attracted Allah Gul and Mawaiz Khan. On seeing them Javed pushed her and ran away. She sustained injuries on her mouth when she fell down on the ground. After that the accused party asked for time to effect a compromise to delay the matter. She requested for legal action against Javed who was subsequently arrested on 23-11-1994 and after completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to face the trial.
3. At the trial prosecution examined five witnesses in all. P.W.1 is Dr. Tufail Ahmad, Medical Officer. He medically examined Mst. Famhida Begum, complainant, on 10-11-1994 and made following observations:-- "A small rounded wound 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. On the inner side of the lower lip, in front of right second incisor. There was no bleeding from the wound at the time of examination. The wound seemed to be about one week old. The injury was Shajja Khafifah."
' P.W.2 is Ghulam Hussain, H.C. He recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. P.W.3 is Mst. Famhida Begum. She is the complainant who reiterated her statement as mentioned hereinabove. P.W.4 is Allah Gul. He is the eye-witness who saw the occurrence alongwith Mawaiz Khan. He deposed that they saw that accused Arshad Javed had caught hold of Mst. Famhida Begum and was trying to remove her to a room. On seeing them, however, the accused gave a push to the complainant who as a result thereof fell down and the accused ran away. P.W.5 is Muhammad Riaz, A.S.-I. He recorded complaint Exh.P.B. On the statement of Mst. Famhida on 10-11-1994 and sent the same to police station for registration of the case. He arrested the appellant/accused on 23-11-1994. He investigated the case and after completion got the appellant/accused challaned.
4. The appellant/accused made a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the allegation and pleaded innocent. He stated that he was not present in the village on the day of occurrence as he had gone to Karachi in those days. He also stated that he had been involved in this case at the instance of Allah Gul P.W. Who had got strained relations with his father as well as with him. He declined to make a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And to produce any evidence in defence.
5. . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. It transpires from the record that the occurrence took place on 2-11-1994 whereas the F.I.R. Was got registered on 10-11-1994 with a delay of eight days. However, the delay has been explained in the F.I.R. Mere delay in such like matters if plausibly explained cannot be considered fatal as normally the concerned parties being conscious of the family honour refrain to immediately report the matter to police. The explanation given by the complainant in her complaint as well as in her statement before the Court shows that the accused party was trying to effect compromise and when no compromise was finalised between the parties the matter was reported to the police for necessary legal action. Her father was also not available and it appears from the cross-examination that her brother had gone on the next day to call her father as naturally being head of the family he was supposed to negotiate the terms of compromise. It is unbelievable to presume that any young unmarried lady would ever subject her career and honour of the family by fabricating a false allegation of this nature wherein her personal respect is highly at stake also. She has made a deposition before the Trial Court on oath. She has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but her statement has remained unshattered as nothing fruitful to defence has been adduced. Her statement finds full corroboration by the I evidence of P.W.4 Allah Gul who is an independent witness and is, in fact, real C uncle of the appellant/accused. Though his relation with his brother, father of the appellant/accused were strained, there is nothing on record to show his relationship with the complainant party to connive with them false implication of the appellant/accused in the instant case. The statement of complainant P.W.3 Famhida Begum finds full corroboration from M.L.R. Submitted by P.W.1 Dr. Tufail Ahmad, Medical Officer. The injury sustained by her when she was pushed by the appellant/accused and resultantly she fell down on the ground was observed by the said Medical Officer who stated the injury to be about one week old. There is no cross-examination on P.W.1 to suggest that the said injury was self-fabricated. In the absence of any motive for false implication as well as due corroboration of the statement of complainant by P.W.4 and P.W.1, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant/accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
6. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, I maintain conviction and sentences of the appellant as awarded to him by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, dated 5-6-1996 and dismiss his appeal. He is present on bail, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentences. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended to him by the trial Court shall remain intact. Both the sentences awarded to him shall also remain concurrent as directed by the learned trial Court. .