' This is an appeal by Muhammad Mumtaz alias Bholi and Muhammad Asharaf alias Jeera against the judgment dated 12-1-74 delivered by M. Lal Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Rawalpindi (with powers under Section 30, Cr. P. C.
2. They were tried by the learned trial Magistrate of offences under section 366/342/354, P. P. C.
They were convicted of the said offences and were sentenced by the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 12-1-74 to 7 years' R. I. Under section 366, P. P. C. And a fine of Rs, 1,000 each (or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I. For six months), two years' R. I. Each for the offence under section 354, P. P. C. And one year's R. I. Each for the offence under section 342, P. P. C.
It was not mentioned by the learned trial Magistrate as to whether or not the sentences were to run concurrently. As such in view of the provision of section 35 of the Cr. P. C. They would be deemed to be consecutive.
3. The appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences.
4. Facts of the prosecution case briefly, are that Miss Simone aged 20 years, and Mr. Bruce Francis, also aged 20 years, both of whom are Canadian nationals, came to visit Pakistan as tourists. They arrived at the Rawalpindi Railway Station on 20th October 1972, by Khyber Mail at about 2-30 a.m.
They came out of the Railway Station with their luggage consisting of three bags and a bundle wrapped in cloth. They wanted to hire a taxi. They were approached by Mumtaz appellant who offered to take them in his taxi. They, accordingly hired his taxi which was an Opel car and told him to take them to Hotel Delux. Ashraf appellant, also accompanied Mumtaz, appellant, and helped to place the luggage of the tourists in the taxi. Mr. Bruce Francis and Miss Simone occupied the rear seat while Mumtaz appellant drove the taxi, and Muhammad Ashraf, appellant, sat beside him on the front seat. After leaving the railway station Mumtaz appellant, took the taxi to a petrol pump from where he got a can filled with petrol. Thereafter, instead of taking the two tourists to Hotel Delux, they took the taxi a different road, outside the Town. Muhammad Ashraf, appellant, who was sitting on the front seat threw a shawl (Exh. P I) on Miss Simone saying that she must be feeling cold and on this pretext he touched her legs. She shouted at him as to what he was doing and threw back the shawl to him. Miss Simone and her companion had realised that the two appellants were not taking them to the Hotel Delux and kept on telling them again and again to take them in the right direction but to no avail. Mumtaz appellant kept on driving the taxi further away from the town and Muhammad Ashraf appellant, kept on leaning back towards the back seat, kissing and making indecent advances to Miss Simone. She however, resisted and repulsed him. When she violently protested against his indecent advances Muhammad Ashraf, appellant, pulled out a knife and gestured in such a manner as to show that he would stab her if she continued to resist. He kept on brandishing his knife in her direction as he molested and fondled her. She and her companion attempted to remain calm and begged to be allowed to get out of the taxi but the latter drove the texi further down the road. Muhammad Ashraf appellant could not succeed in fulfilling his evil design in spite of his efforts. Mumtaz appellant the driver of the taxi thereupon, changed his seat with Muhammad Ashraf appellant. The latter started driving the taxi, while Mumtaz appellant, started prosecuting the same design, he jumped to the back seat of the taxi holding the knife in his hand. He also started kissing Miss Simone and taking off her dress by lifting it. At the same time he was mildly crying 'love', 'love', glove', Miss Simone pointed to her belly indicating that she was pregnant but he did not call. She then pleaded for mercy in the name of Allah but in spite of her imploring the appellant kept on 'prosecuting his illicit design'. The two accused persons again changed their seats. At that time the vehicle slowed down and Mr. Bruce Francis and Miss Simone managed to jump out of the taxi. They quickly ran to a ditch and hid themselves. They also took away the bag which they had with them in the taxi leaving the remaining lugguage which had been placed in the dicky. The appellants drove the car up and down looking for Miss Simone and her companion sometime with their lights on and sometime with their lights off. The latter however, kept on hiding. After sometime the appellants gave up and went away carrying with them the three bags placed in the dicky of the taxi-cab.
7. At the trial the prosecution produced as many as ten (10) witnesses in support of its case. Mr. Bruce Francis, P. W. 1 and Miss Simone, P. W. 2, fully supported the prosecution case and described the whole incident which has briefly been narrated above. They also identified their luggage as well as the churri (Exh. P. 2) and the taxi-cab. They identified the accused when they were shown to them by the police. They also identified them (accused) in Court while making their statements and correctly pointed out each of the two appellants, while narrating the parts played by each of them. Manzoor Hussain Shah, P. W. 7 and Maqsood Elahi, P. W. 10 (a brief reference to whose statements has been made above) also supported the prosecution case. Mr. Balaghat Khan, Assistant Immigration Officer, Canadian Embassy, Islamabad (P. W. 5) stated that Miss Simone and Mr. Bruce Francis had come to the Canadian Embassy on the morning of 20th October 1972 and had narrated the whole story, and that on the direction of the Ambassador he had accompanied the two tourists to the police station where they lodged the F.
1. l4. Iftikhar Ahmed, P. W. 8 stated that taxi HA 2227 belonged to him and Muhammad Gulzar father of Mumtaz accused appellant had been engaged by him as his driver.
8. The appellants however, denied the guilt pleading their innocence. Mumtaz appellant was asked if it was a fact that Muhammad Gulzar was his father and he had been engaged by lftikhar, P. W. 8, as driver of his taxi No, HA 2227, but he simply answered that he did not know.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State at length and I have also gone through the entire evidence as well as the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate.
The crucial evidence in this case is that of Miss Simone and Mr. Bruce Francis who were eye- witnesses of the incident and have given a detailed account of what they had suffered at the hands of the two appellants. They are educated persons. Mr. Bruce Francis stated that he was a University student who had completed the 1st year of his Degree Course. He also stated that Miss Simone was studying Art in the same college. There was obviously no previous enmity between them and the two appellants. Nor have the appellants alleged any previous enmity with the two tourists. The latter had therefore, no reason to falsely involve the appellants. Their version of the incident has a ring of truth about it and I am of the view that the learned trial Magistrate was justified in believing them. Their testimony is supported by the recovery of their luggage from the taxi in question as well as by the statements of Manzoor Hussain Shah Constable P. W. 7, Maqsood Elahi another taxi driver P. W. 10, and Balaghat Khan P. W. 5, an Assistant Officer of the Immigration Office in the Canadian Embassy. No contradiction worth the name has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the statements of Miss Simone and Mr. Bruce Francis, nor has he been able to find any fault in the testimony of the remaining witnesses including the witness of the recovery of the churri and the luggage from the taxi. The only point urged by him was that the police had not held a formal identification parade of the appellants and their identity cannot therefore, be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. The eye-witnesses in this case were educated persons who had had ample time of seeing the two appellants from close quarters and for a reasonable length of time. They admittedly had no previous enmity with the appellants and had therefore no reason to name them falsely as the persons who had abducted them in their taxi. I am of the view that no formal identification parade was necessary in this case especially when the accused appellants had been shown to the witnesses by the police soon after their arrest and the witnesses had identified them at once.
10. Considering the facts of this case and the reliable evidence on the record I see no reason to interfere with the elaborate and well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Magistrate. I, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellants.
' Considering the seriousness of the offence and also the fact that the conduct of the appellants has injured the interest of Pakistan and brought the entire nation into disrepute, I am inclined to agree with the learned trial Magistrate that this is not a case in which lenient view of the matter can be taken. I, therefore, maintain the sentence of the appellants as well.
11. As already mentioned the sentences awarded for different offences would run consecutively and the aggregate sentence of the appellants shall therefore, come to ten (10) years' R. I .
12. The appeal stands dismissed.