' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.--- This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 18-6-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby the learned trial Judge had acquitted the respondents.
2. Prosecution case at the trial, was, that Zulfiqar Ahmad, respondent No,1, had abducted Mst.
Kausar Perveen, wife of the complainant on 25-2-1995 with the help and active participation of Iftikhar Ahmad, Zaheer Ahmad and Zubair Ahmad, brothers of Zulfiqar Ahmad and that a case F.I.R.
No,125 of 1995 had been got registered by the appellant under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Miana Gondal, but the same had been cancelled after investigation. Complainant (appellant herein) had claimed that during the period Zulfiqar Ahmad had been committing Zina with Mst. Kausar Perveen and resultantly a child was born to Mst. Kausar Perveen. It was also the case of the complainant that he had thereafter filed a writ petition which was allowed and another case was registered against the accused under the order of High Court. In the trial which commenced on the challan having been submitted to Court in pursuance of second F.I.R. Respondents had been charged under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, however, Zulfiqar Ahmad had been charged under section 16 of the same Ordinance also separately.
' Respondents during trial had taken up the plea that they had not committed any offence and that actually Mst. Kausar Perveen, had obtained a divorce, whereafter they had entered into marriage and that they were living as husband and wife and the child born to Mst. Kausar Perveen was the result of the marital cohabitation between them. In that regard apart from statements made by them, they had also examined Secretary, Union Council who had been named as prosecution witness, but had been given up as unnecessary, by the prosecution, to prove that a divorce had taken place between the appellant herein and Mst. Kausar Perveen and that Zulfiqar Ahmad had entered into a regular marriage with her, which was registered in the record of the Union Council.
3. It was on the basis of the above plea supported by the Secretary, Union Council and the record produced by him, that the learned trial Judge had come to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondents and that they had brought on record reasonable and plausible evidence in support of their plea that they had regularly married each other after Mst. Kausar Perveen had obtained a divorce through Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant on being confronted with such facts, has not been able to contradict anything noted above. He was not able to say anything more than the fact, that Mst.
Kausar Perveen was the wife of the appellant and that she had been living with him as wife.
Nonetheless he could not point out anything from record, to show that marriage amongst the appellant and Mst. Kausar Perveen had not been dissolved through a decree by the Court nor could he point out that no regular marriage had taken place between the respondents or that the child given birth to, by Mst. Kausar Perveen was not conceived during the period, after she had wedded with Zulfiqar Ahmad.
5. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.