' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.--- Appellant Nasir Iqbal has called in question the judgment, dated 11-8-1999 passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,I, Karachi in Special Case No,284 of 1999 (State v. Nasar Iqbal) arising out of H I.R, No,81 of 1999 under section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 376, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sharafi Goth Malir, whereby the appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 25 years with 30 strips and compensation of Rs,75,000 to be paid to girl Shazia under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default thereof the appellant has to undergo 6 months' R.I.
2. The facts as narrated by complainant Riaz Hussain in the F.I.R. Lodged at 9-50 hours on 16-7-1999 are that on the day of incident while he was passing through the house of (late) Abdul Sattar,- younger sister of victim girl Shazia disclosed to him that her sister Shazia was not well and had to be taken to hospital. The complainant hired taxi and went inside the house and saw girl Shazia of 9/10 years was bleeding and her elder sister Shamshad was also present. She informed him that accused Nasir Iqbal had taken her from street to a house at 5 p.m. And subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr.
The complainant took the girl to police station and lodged the report.
3. The police carried out the investigation and made arrest of the accused on 17-7-1999. On conclusion of the investigation they submitted challan.
4. At the trial prosecution examined P.W.1 Dr. Muhammad Qasim, Exh.5, P.W.2 Dr. Khuda Bux Exh.9, P.W.3 Riaz Hussain (complainant) Exh.11, P.W.4 Dr. Memona Exh.15, P.W.5 Additional City Magistrate, Abdul Karim Exh.18, P.W.6 Sarfraz Exh.26, P.W.7 Saifur Rehman Exh.27, P.W.8 Shafqat Hussain Exh.28, P.W.9 Baby Shazia Exh.30, P.W.10 P.C. Gohar Ali Exh.31, and P.W.11 Investigation Officer Mehdi Khan Exh.34. Ultimately the accused was found guilty and was awarded sentence in terms stated above.
5. It is contended by Mr. Ashraf Ali Butt learned counsel for appellant that he has been falsely implicated and that the act of Zina was committed by Sarfraz. The investigation was dishonestly handled. It is further contended that no independent witness has been examined from the vicinity and the witnesses are interested. Learned counsel has pointed out certain discrepancies in evidence of victim girl and other witnesses. He further asserted that the evidence of D.Ws.
Tassadduq Hussain and Muhammad Ayaz has not been properly appraised.
6. Mr. S. Jalil A. Hashmi learned A.A.-G. For State has supported the impugned judgment and urged that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and the name of appellant figures in the F.I.R. The evidence of victim girl is natural. He further stressed upon the judicial confession and extra-judicial confession.
Medical evidence and the expert report support the ocular evidence.
7. Act of Zina is established by Dr. Memona who testified that on 16-7-1999 at 11-00 p.m. She had examined girl Shazia and found that she had a human teeth bite on her cheek. She further deposed that hymen was ruptured and started bleeding on a touch. She further stated that the girl was subjected to fresh act of sexual intercourse and the injuries were 8 hours old. The next point, which needs consideration, is whether the present appellant had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with victim girl. In this context testimony of victim Shazia is supported by P.Ws. Sarfraz and Saifur Rehman, judicial confession of the accused, extra-judicial confession and the recoveries made by the police. The victim girl has deposed in positive terms and fully implicated the appellant by saying that accused Nasir Iqbal was already known to her as being neighbour and stated that he took her in a room in the house where he committed Ziyadati by removing her clothes. She tried to raise cries but Nasir threatened her to keep quiet and pressed her throat. She further stated that she had bleeded which was cleaned by appellant with a cloth and threw it on the roof. It is further in evidence that thereafter, Sarfraz and Telliwala viz. Saifur Rehman came there, before whom the appellant confessed saying that he had made a mistake: Thereafter, she went to her house. The testimony of victim is attacked by defence on pointing out very minor discrepancies, which can be of no value for the defence. Although the baby was cross-examined at length in order to take her out of the track, but the efforts did not meet the success.
8. The evidence of girl is supported by Investigating Officer who found the blood at Wardat. It is further got support from the testimony of P.Ws. Sarfraz and Saifur Rehman who had seen the girl bleeding profusely at the place of occurrence. The appellant had further produced a yellow piece of cloth thrown by him on the roof of house. This fact has been supported by Mashir Riaz and Investigating Officer.
9. The appellant has further confessed his guilt before P.Ws. Sarfraz,1 Saifur Rehman and Shafqat.
The aforesaid witnesses have not been suggested any enmity with the appellant. Hence they cannot be termed as interested or partisan to appellant. The stronger piece of evidence, which is appearing on the record, is the judicial confession of accused/appellant, which alone is sufficient to carry conviction. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the judicial confession was illegal or that the same was not voluntarily and true. Although the other piece of evidence discussed above are sufficient for the conviction but apart from the same, the judicial confession, though retracted is sufficient for the conviction. The reference can be made to a case of Khan Muhammad and others v. The State 1999 SCM R 1818, wherein their Lordships have held as under:-- "Having concluded that no illegality had been committed in recording The confession, we are of the view that in law the conviction on the basis of retracted judicial confession alone is sustainable provided the confession has been recorded in accordance with law. However, by way of abundant precaution, if we seek corroboration to the confession, the same is available on the record of this case. The recovery of hatchet at the instance of appellant Khan Muhammad and his clothes, Chadar and Patka and of Shalwar of Mst. Kaneezan, which they were wearing at the time of their arrest, were found to be stained with human blood corroborates the confessional statements. The recovery was proved by Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Abbas Inspector similarly the Churri recovered from appellant Mst. Kaneezan was also found stained with human blood. As far as motive for the omission of the crime is concerned, statements of both the appellants and that of Muhammad Azam, brother of Mst. Maryam Bibi deceased, clearly show that with a view to cementing the illicit relations between the appellants into marriage after eliminating his own wife and children stands proved on record. In our view, this was the most dastardly act committed by both the appellants. Looking at the passion of lust, which resulted into death of innocent children, who were still blooming into age."
10. The judicial confession also in positive terms reflects upon the fact that the appellant obtained key of the house from Sarfraz which fact is supported by P.W. Sarfraz and this piece of evidence has not been denied by the defence even by way of suggestion to this P.W. The very judicial confession does not deny the coming of P.W. Sarfraz and Saifur Rehman at the scene of offence. For the said reasons the judicial confession is voluntarily and true. The next piece of evidence is recoveries of cloth stained with semen. The articles were recovered in presence of Mashir Gohar.
11. As indicated above the act of Zina is admitted by the defence. They only attribute it to Sarfraz claiming the substituting of accused which, in the circumstances is ridiculous. The incidents like a present one involve deeply the question of honour and in such matters people do not substitute the real culprit in the way as alleged by defence. The defence witnesses seems to be interested in protecting the appellant and their evidence is unconvincing which cannot override the huge evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
12. Likewise the testimony of victim girl is supported by other pieces of evidence as discussed above but even otherwise the only evidence of victim girl, if found truthful is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond any doubt. The reference can be made to a case of Muhammad and others v. The State 1984 SCM R 954 (Shariat Bench) wherein their Lordships have held as under:-- "The last argument of the learned counsel again relates to the appreciation of the depositions made by the prosecutrix and the doctor. We, however, on the request of the learned counsel did go through the relevant pieces of evidence. There is no irreconcilable contradiction or discrepancy.
' The prosecutrix having been relied upon, as a truthful witness, it is not necessary for us to examine the testimony of the other eyewitnesses."
13. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment is based on sound judicial principles of dispensation of criminal justice and is not suffering from illegalities or irregularities and does not call for interference. The sentence is, therefore, maintained and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.