1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 22-4-1995 at 11-45 a.m. a case under section 10(3) of th Offence of Zina (Enforecement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was registered on the statement of Muhammad Ali with Police Station Kameer District Sahiwal against Abdul Rauf, Irshad alias Kaka, Ryas, Nazir Ahmad and Muhamad Siddique for having committed rape upon Mst. Sughran Bibi. The complainant, Muhammad Ali was sleeping in his house with his family on the night between 15/16-4-1995. His minor daughter was sleeping in a separate roo A. At about 12.00 mid-night. Abdul Rauf alias Roofi armed with .30 bore pistol, entered his house and at pistol point, took Mst. Sughran Bibi to the drawing room of his co-accused Nazir Ahmad where Kaka armed with rifle, Muhammed Siddique and llyas armed with shot guns were present. The accused namely, Abdul Rauf, Irshad alias Kaka; llyas, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique-committed rape at pistol point with Mst. Sughran Bibi turn by turn. Thereafter, Abdul Rauf brought Mst. Sughra Bibi back to the house of the complainant. The inmates of the house woke up and raised an alarm.
2. Muhammad Sharif and Alam Sher P. Ws. Reached the spot. They saw Abdul Rauf in the electricity light. Motive is that 2/3 days prior to the occurrrence, Mst. Shahnaz wife of Nazir Ahmad acccused gave temptation to Mst. Sughran Bibi to establish illicit relations with Abdul Rauf, accused on which Mst. Sughran Bibi felt annoyed. She disclosed this fact to the members of her family. Abuses were exchanged between the two families over this incident. In this scenario, the aforesaid offence was committed by the accused. During trial, the prosecution produced Dr. Lubna Shah P.W.1, Allah Yar P.W.2, Akhtar Hussain P.W.3, Mst. Sughran Bibi P.W.4, Muhammad Ali P.W.5, Muhammad Sharif P.W.6, Aurangzeb P.W.7, Muhammad Anwar P.W.8, Mukhtiar Ahmad P.W.9 and Muhammad Sharif P.W.10, P.W.1 deposed that Mst. Sughran Bibi was subjected to sexual intercourse. P.W.2 is just a formal witness. P.W.3, Akhtar Hussain A.S.I. Investigated the case. He stated that , on 17-7-1995, he recovered .30 bore revolver from Abdul Rauf. Mst. Sughran Bibi P.W.4 in her statement deposed that she was raped by all the accused one after the other. She continued to maintain that Abdul Rauf came to her room and, on pistol point, she was taken to the drawing room of Nazir Ahmed, co- accused where she was subjected to rape. Muhammad Ali P.W.5 and Muhammad Sharif P.W.6 have supported the prosecution version. Aurangzeb P.W.7 arrested Abdul Rauf on 4-7-1995.
3. Muhammad Anwar P.W.8 recorded the statement of Allah Yar under section 161, Cr.P.0 and prepared the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Mukhtiar Ahmed S.I P.W.9 recorded the statement of complainant Exh.PD. He visited the spot. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them in their statements under section 342 Cr.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 8-10-1997 convicted Abdul Rauf under sections 10(3) and 11 of the Ordinance. Under section 10(3) the Court sentenced him to 10 years R.I. While under Section 11 sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. Vide the same judgment, the co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The convict challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,10 of 1997 while the State filed Criminal Revision No,13 of 1997 against the acquittal of the co-accused of the convict. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment disposed of both the appeal and the revision observing:- "After coming to the conclusion that Mst. Sughran Bibi was a consenting party no offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No, VII of 1979 would be constituted.
4. ' Obviously she was not abducted forcibly. In a case under section 10(2) ordinarily both the parties i.e, man and woman are guilty but all the Investigating Agencies in their own wisdom came to the conclusion that offence under section 10(4) of the Ordinance VII of 1979 was committed by the appellant and his co-accused, therefore, Mst. Sughran was not arraigned as an accused.
5. ' Be that as it may there remains no doubt in view of medical evidence that offence of Zina was in fact committed which is covered by section 10(23 of the Ordinance No,VII of 1979. Maximum punishment prescribed under this section is ten years R.I. With whipping and also with fine.
6. Sentence of whipping has been abolished on account of enforcement of Abolition of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. The sentence of whipping as such is not maintainable and the same is set aside. Considering that Mst. Sughran has given her age as 18 years in the statement and also a birth certificate has been placed on the file showing her age more then 17 years and the fact that she has not been proceeded against, the imposition of maximum punishment is not called for. I, therefore, hold the appellant guilty under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentence him to undergo R.I. For seven years with a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of same he will undergo further R.I. For one year.
7. ' Benefit of saction 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is, however, extended.
8. ' The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently the accompanying appeal filed by the State i.e, Criminal Appeal No,13 of 1997 is dismissed."
9. ' This is a petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Learned cousel has attacked the evidence of Mst.
10. Sughran Bibi on the ground that her evidence does not inspire confidence inasmuh as she was a consenting party.
3. There is no substance in the argument. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Mst. Sughran Bibi has proved that on the night of occurrence, she was subjected to rape by the accused. Dr. Lubna Shah P.W. 1 corroborated her statement saying that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Similarly, the statement of Muhammad Ali P.W.5 has corroborated the statement of the victim. The prosecution evidence is confidence inspiring. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence, particularly, of Mst. Sughran Bibi. The victim was minor aged about 12 years when she was ravished by the accused at pistol point. A heinous and brutal offence has been committed by the accused. This is a case of rape pure and simple. The accused, therefore, deserves no leniency at all. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.