The allegations against the petitioner and 12 others were that they abducted Mst. Sakina and her father Mohammed, caused injuries on them and Met. Sakina war subjected to rape. The main incident of abduction is said to have taken place on 16-3-1973 at 6 p. m. In the area of Chair No. 20/14-L, Police Station Shahkot, District Sahiwal. The F. I. R. Exh. PA was lodged next morning i.e. 17-3- 1973 at 8-30 a.m. By Mst. Sakina's brother-in-law Allah Bakhsh which was recorded by Mr. Awais Bakhsh, Sub-Inspector, P. W. 8 at the Polite Station at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence. In the F,
1. R. Were mentioned two witnesses Mubarik A.I and Muhammad Shian but they were not produced at the trial. After investigation, the thirteen accused persons were put to trial under section 148/?66/365/37a/324;149, P. P. C. Arid were found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum being four years by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Shaiwal vide order dated 5-4-1976, The convicts filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sahiwal, while accepting the appeal of the other 12 co-accused and acquitting them, held the petitioner guilty of all the offences except under section 365/149, P. p. C. For the abduction of Muhammad injured and under section 148, for forming unlawful assembly and committing rioting. The learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the sentences awarded to the petitioner. This is vide order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29-7-1976. The sole convict hiss come up in revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the same evidence as against the 12 co- accused has been found to be false and there is no way of saying that that is true against the petitioner and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to acquittal, at least, under the principle of benefit of doubt. It is, next. Contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the prosecution witnesses were related Inter se. Interested and inimical towards tine accused persons, including the petitioner, but, the petitioner's conviction has been maintained with reference to the .Recovery of Msr. Sakina, a hatchet, from the petitioner, and the medical evidence in respect of Mst. Sakina. Learned counsel contends that the recovery evidence is discrepant and unreliable and the medical evidence is of not much weight because Mst. Sakina was a married woman.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the petitioner has been found guilty rightly and his cast is distinguishable from that of the acquitted accused.
4. After heating the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance, it is quite clear that 13 persons, including the petitioner were put to trial and the principal witnesses against them were Mat. Sakina, her father Mohammad, and. Her brother-in-law, Allah Bakhsh. The two independent witnesses, namely Mubarat A.I and Mohammad Shabir mentioned in the F. I R.
Were not produced. The witnesses related inter se have been found to have grudge against the petitioner and his co-accused and were also held to be inimical. The Investigating Officer, Mr. Awais Bakhsh, P. W. 8 had said that he had taken charge of the police station only a few days earlier and he did not know the circumstances of the Ilaqa. He added there it was true that there was party bazi between the complainant side and the accused persons. He, further, stated that the Inspector of Police had come in connection with two investigation of the case. Further, that it was true that the accused persons had offered that If the complainant party were to take oath that they were guilty, they might be challaned. The complainant party stated before the Inspector of the Police that they would inform after consultation. He, then, referred to the Zimnis and said that on 29-4-1973 the complainant party refused to take oath. He also added that it was true that many people read appeared in defence of the accused. It may be observed at this stage that though the accused had not produced any defence evidence, but, once it had come to the notice of the prosecution that there were witnesses to the contrary, it should also have cited and produced those witnesses as well, because the prosecution is expected to produce all evidence whether it is in its favour or against it. The principle is that the prosecution produces all evidence for arriving at a just decision and not only one-sided evidence to procure conviction. Be that as it may, the conviction of the petitioner has been maintained on account of the recovery of Mst. Sakina and hatchet from him and the medical evidence of Mst. Sakina as pieces of corroboration. Now if the first stop in the prosecution case of abduction is not believable, then, her (Mst. Sakina's) being found in company of the petitioner by itself would not make that into an abduction As regards rape, the medical evidence by itself would not prove that Mo. Sakina had been subjected to rape by the petitioner because the medical evidence, at the maximum, can show that intercourse bad taken place. Besides that the prosecutrix is a married woman, there is no evidence of any intercourse against her will by the petitioner excepting her own word, but when she has been disbelieved on all aspects of the case as against all the 12 co-accused or the petitioner, in the circumstances, it is not safe to rely on her statement on this aspect of the case against the petitioner alone. In this behalf, an extract may be cited from a recent judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Director of Pubic Prosecutions v. Hester ((1972) 73 All E R 1056). "The accumulated experience of Gouts of law, reflecting accepted general knowledge of the ways of the world, has shown that there are many circumstances and situations in which it is unwise to found settled conclusions on the testimony of arm lemon alone. The reasons for this tree diverse. There are some suggestions which can readily be made but which are only with more difficulty rebutted.
There may in some cases be motives of self-interest; or of self-exculpation or of vindictiveness. In some situations the strain line of truth Is diverted by the influence of emotion of Hysteria of alarm or of remorse. Sometimes it may be that owing to immaturity or perhaps to lively imaginative gifts there is no true appreciation of the gulf that separates truth from falsehood. It must, therefore, be sound policy to have rules of law or of practice which are designed to avert the peril that findings of guilt may be insecurely based. So it has come about that certain statutory enactments impose the necessity in some instances of having more than one witness before there can be a conviction.
So also has it come about that in other instances the Courts have given guidance in terms which have become rules. Included in such cases are those in which charges of sexual offences are made." From the same judgment, a sentence about corroborative evidence may be quoted. At page 1065, it was observed that "the purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence. Recovery of hatchet is not of much significance as it was not even bloodstained. Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, corroborative evidence against the petitioner is not of any avail to the prosecution.
5. In view of what has been stated above, it is not quite safe, in all the circumstances of the case, to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt. His revision petition is accepted and convictions and sentences are set aside. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.