' Appellant Allah Diwaya son of Muhammad Ramzan was tried by Special Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Bahawalpur-I in case F.I.R. No,329 of 1998, dated 4-12-1998 under section 394/337, P.P.C. Read with section 11/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered at Police Station, Liaquatpur who vide order, dated 16-3-1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- ' Under section 11 R . I. For 25 of the Offence of years and 30 Zina (Enforcement stripes of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979.
' Under section R.I. For 25 years 10(3) of the and 30 stripes Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979.
' Under section R.I. For 10 years as 337-D, P.P.C. "Tazir" and to pay one-third of the Diyat amounting to Rs,83,875.01 as "Arsh" to the victim.
' Under section 392, R.I. For 7 years P.P.C. Plus a fine of Rs,10,000 in default whereof to further undergo one year's S.I.
' All the sentences awarded to the appellant were to run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 3-12-1998 at about 9-00 a.m. Complainant/ victim Mst.
Parveen aged 11/12 years was going on tractor-trolley to see her mother in Chak No,23-A where she had gone to pluck cotton. The appellant was following her on a donkey cart. After covering some distance the accused/appellant deceitfully managed to board Mst. Parveen on his cart and kept on roaming at different places. Stately on the same day at about mid-night the appellant committed Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Parveen and upon her cries the appellant gave her a knife blow in the abdomen and also removed her earrings. The father of Mst. Parveen namely Sultan Mahmood P.W.2 along with Manzoor Ahmad P.W.3 reached at the spot. They tried to apprehend the appellant but he managed to escape.
4. The matter was reported to the police on 4-12-1998 when the Patrolling Party was present at Qayyum Petrol Pump within the area of Liaquatpur City. Muhammad Afzal, A.S.-I. P.W.10 recorded statement Exh.P.A of Mst. Parveen and on the basis of the same formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was registered at the police station. The Investigating Officer after examining Mst. Parveen prepared her injury statement Exh.P.E./2 and sent her for medical examination at Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Liaquatpur through Ghulam Murtaza Constable. He also recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. And proceeded to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared rough site plan Exh.P.G. On the same day said A.S.-I arrested the appellant and on 11-12- 1998 Allah Diawaya appellant led to the recovery of four ear-rings P.1/1-4 from the cattle-shed belonging to one Shakir Shah. These rings were taken into custody vide memo. Exh.P.C. Similarly, on 15-12-1998 the appellant led to the recovery of knife P.2. The same was taken into custody vide memo. Exh.P.D. After completing the investigation, the challan was submitted before the trial Court.
5. To prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution produced 11 witnesses before the trial Court.
(a) Mst. Parveen P.W.1 (complainant/ victim ' supported the prosecution case in verbatim.
(b) Sultan Mahmood P.W.2 was the father of Mst. Parveen (complainant). He along with other persons of village made search for his missing daughter Mst. Parveen. At about 3-00 a.m. He heard the noise of weeping of Mst. Parveen and rushed to the spot and saw that Allah Diwaya appellant was committing Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Parveen and within his view the appellant gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Mst. Parveen and also removed her ear-rings.
(c) Manzoor Ahmad P.W.3. Also searched for Mst. Parveen along with her father and saw Allah Diawaya appellant committing Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Parveen and within his view the appellant gave knife blow in the abdomen of Mst. Parveen and also removed her ear-rings.
(d) Tariq Nazir P.W.4 saw the appellant along with Mst. Parveen. Upon query Allah Diwaya appellant told him that he was taking Mst. Parveen to her mother.
(e) Khalid Iqbal P.W.5 joined the investigation of this case. In his presence the appellant led to the recovery of earnings P.1/1-4 as well as knife P.2. Both these articles were taken into custody vide memos. Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.D. Respectively.
(f) Dr. Khadija Ghani, W.M.O. P.W.6 medically examined Mst. Parveen and found the following injury on her person.
' Injury No,1 "An incised, vertical and gaping wound in the mid-line on the upper part of abdomen (i,e, epigastrium) 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. x reaching upto the stomach in the abdominal cavity."
' While conducting pelvic examination she gave the following opinion:-- ' Injury No,2 "Slight bleeding per valium was present. Hymen was ruptured.
' Its margins were badly torn and bleeds during manipulation. Two fingers were admitted with difficulty. Two cotton swa bs were taken from vagina and sent to Chemical Examiner, Multan for the detection of semen.
Nature of injuries (i)Jurh Jaifah and caused by sharp weapon.
' Penetration had done. Final opinion was kept pending till the receiving of report of Chemical Examiner.
' In the opinion of the doctor probable time between the injuries and medical examination was within 12 hours. After receiving the Report of Chemical Examiner, the lady doctor was of the view that sexual act had been committed with the examinee Mst. Parveen.
(g) Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan P.W.7 conducted physical examination of the appellant and found him to be potent and able to perform sexual act.
(h) Investigation of this case was conducted by Muhammad Afzal, A.S.-I. As narrated earlier.
(i) Rest of the witnesses being of formal nature need not to be discussed.
(j) The learned D.D.A. Tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E./3 and closed the prosecution case.
6. The appellant was also examined by the trial Court under section 342. Cr.P.C.
' While answering to the question why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him, the appellant replied as under:-- "I was an employee of Master Ashraf, landlord of the locality, and he denied to pay my salary, a dispute arose and on my protest he got involved me in this case falsely. Sultan Mahmood, father of the complainant, is subservient of the said Master Ashraf and he along with other P.Ws. Deposed against nine on the asking of the said landlord as they are under his influence. The said landlord has managed this case against me just to usurp my pay money."
' The appellant neither made any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any defence.
7. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as narrated in paragraph No,1 of this judgment.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a false case. All the witnesses who had deposed against the appellant were closely related to each other and were under the influence of one Master Ashraf, a landlord of the area, with whom the appellant had a dispute for the payment of his salary and that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case. The recovery of knife P.2 and ear-rings P.1/1-4 was a fabricated piece of evidence in order to strengthen the prosecution case. It was argued that the recovery evidence relied upon by the prosecution was a later innovation and that in the circumstances of this case benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant.
9. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State had vehemently opposed this appeal.
10. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The precise allegation against the appellant is that he after deceitfully abducting Mst. Parveen P.W.1 (complainant-victim), a young girl of 11/12 years, forcibly committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and also caused injury with a knife on her abdomen as well as removed her ear-rings.
11. In order to prove its case the prosecution has relied upon the statement of Mst. Parveen P.W.1, (complainant-victim), Sultan Mehmood P.W.2 (father of Mst. Parveen) and Manzoor Ahmad P.W.3 as eye-witnesses of the occurrence and has sought corroboration from the evidence of last-seen, recoveries and medical evidence.
12. As far the ocular account is concerned Mst. Parveen P.W.1 (complainant-victim) had specifically stated that she was ravished by the appellant who also gave knife blow on her abdomen and forcibly removed her ear-rings. Sultan Mehmood P.W.2 and Manzoor Ahmad P.W.3 were the eyewitnesses of this occurrence and they had supported the statement of the prosecutrix in verbatim. All the three witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but unfortunately defense had failed to shatter the credibility of these witnesses or to show any enmity of these witnesses with the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case. Mst. Parveen was a minor girl at the time of occurrence. It is not believable that such a minor girl would make statement against the appellant under the influence of one landlord of the area while exonerating the real culprits.
The statements of the eye-witnesses stand corroborated by the medical evidence according to which Mst. Parveen was subjected to sexual intercourse as well as she had a sharp-edged weapon injury on her abdomen. The ocular account is further corroborated by the evidence of last-seen as narrated by Tariq Nazir P.W.4. This witness saw Mst. Parveen in the company of Allah Diwaya appellant on the day of occurrence and upon a query by him the appellant told that he was taking the girl to her mother. This witness was absolutely an independent and disinterested witness who had no grouse against the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case.
13. The recovery evidence relied upon by the prosecution is another factor to strengthen the prosecution case. The appellant led to the recovery of four ear-rings P.1/1-4 which were removed by him from the ears of the victim after the occurrence. Similarly, he led to the recovery of knife P.2 with which he allegedly caused injury to the victim. Both these articles were found lying in a place which was in the exclusive knowledge of appellant. This recovery was not witnessed by one Khalid Iqbal P.W.5 who was related to the complainant party nor had any axe to grind against the appellant.
14. The statement of the victim as well as other eye-witnesses not only inspire confidence but are also corroborated by the evidence of recovery, last-seen and the medical report, thus, in the circumstances ocular account can safely be relied upon for upholding the conviction of the appellant.
15. I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the quantum of sentence. I am afraid the appellant had committed a heinous offence and he does not deserve any leniency in the quantum of sentence. However, it is directed that the appellant shall get the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The appeal stands dismissed.