1995 PLP 1278 (MLD)

S. Zawar Hussain Jaffari, A. A. G. for the State. S. Mushtaq Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Applicants are involved in a case Crime No. 83 of 1994 P.S. Ahmedpur and are facing trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Khairpur, bail application moved on their behalf was rejected by the trial Court hence similar application is filed. Facts of the prosecution case in brief as per F.I.R. lodged by complainant Ghulam Abbas on 23‑6‑1994 at 18‑10 p.m. are that he runts Kiryana shop at village Kolab Jeeal. He has got three sons and seven daughters, out of whom his daughter Mst. Naziran was aged about 14‑15 years. His Masat Allah Dino resides near his house, who has also got a daughter Mst. Zahida aged about 13‑14 years, Mst. Naziran daughter of complainant and Mst. Zahida daughter of complainant's Masat were unmarried and on the day of lodging of report, the complainant Ghulam Abbas and Masat Allah Dino had seen the above girls sitting on the bank of watercourse and they were washing clothes. It was noon time, the complainant Ghulam Abbas was coming from his shop for taking meals and Allah Dino, his Masat, had met him on the way. Then they both arrived near the abovesaid girls, all of sudden, applicant/accused Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Uris, both Kandhra, armed with pistols, came there out of whom Ghulam Hussain dragged Mst. Naziran, whereas Muhammad Uris dragged Mst. Zahida, both girls were raising cries and they were forcibly taken away by the accused in a white colour car, which was parked near place of Vardat, where applicant Guloo Kandhro and one unidentified car driver were available. Complainant Ghulam Abbas and his Masat raised cries and also on the cries of abovesaid girls P.Ws Amanullah, Deedar Ali other villagers were attracted on the place of Wardat. The above-named applicants/accused took away both the girls within the sight of complainant party. The complainant lodged such report at Police Station Ahmedpur alleging therein that the abovesaid girls have been abducted by the above-named applicants/accused with intent to commit Zina with them. Police after usual investigation recovered the girls and got them examined through Woman Medical Officer R.H.C. Pir‑Jo‑Goth and after completing 'the investigation of the case, challaned the above-named accused. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. Zawar Hussain Jaffari learned A. A. G. for the State. Latter has opposed to the grant of bail. Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar has contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely involved in the case. Learned counsel has further contended that the abductees were recovered from an abandoned house and not from possession of applicants. Abductees were recovered on 3rd day of alleged incident but were not produced before any Magistrate for recording their statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. because they were not going to support the prosecution case. Learned counsel submitted that the abductees were produced before the W.M.O. Pir‑Jo‑Goth who has issued certificate that there were, no marks of violence and no stains of blood or semen were detected on clothes as, well as on body of the victims. Swabs taken were sent to the Chemical Examiner, the report of Chemical Examiner is also in negative. Learned counsel has filed a copy of Kawish Magazine dated 27‑7‑1994 in which an article with regard to abduction and murder of abductees has been published. Learned counsel has very much stressed upon the report of correspondent that the applicants who belong to Kandhra tribe have been falsely implicated due to enmity, and their case requires further enquiry, Learned counsel has relied upon 1987 P Cr. L J 409, 1987 P Cr. L J 975, 1957 P Cr. L J 1118, 1237, 1990 P Cr. L J 1899, 1986 P Cr. L J 774 and 1986 P Cr. L J 2581. Mr. S. Zawar Hussain Jaffari, learned A. A. G. has contended that prosecution case is supported by oral as well as medical evidence; abductees/victim girls have also implicated applicants in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements, article published in newspaper is not authentic proof to be relied upon and has vehemently opposed the application. Same arguments have been adopted by the learned counsel of complainant. The abductees were abducted on 23‑6‑1994 and recovered on 26‑6‑1994 from an abandoned house which fact is supported by oral evidence of complainant and P.Ws. and not from possession of applicants, they might lie under watch/guard of the applicants, and the applicants remained away in order to save themselves. Abductees, when examined by the police, supported the case of prosecution. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the abductees were not produced before any Magistrate for recording their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. has no force. Police get the statements of P.Ws. recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. only to bound down P.Ws. In the present case abductees supported the version of prosecution hence there was no need for their statements got to be recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. As for contention of learned counsel that there are no marks of violence on the persons of abductees/victims; perhaps learned counsel means, violence over visible parts of body. Woman Medical Officer R.H.C. Pir‑Jo Goth has issued certificate for Mst. Zahida which reads "she is unmarried girl of 25 years old, as the incident occurred three days back, so at the time of examination, there is no stain of blood and semen seen on clothes as well as on the body. There is no marks of violence externally and internally seen. Hymen is not intact, tear is 7?o clock in direction, healed tear." Admittedly report of Chemical Examiner is in negative, because the abductees were examined and swabs were taken after 3 days of their abduction. Learned counsel further contended that the abductees have been murdered by their parents and has filed a copy of Kawish Magazine dated 27th July 1994 with caption "SINDH JOON NIYANIYOON EIAAN MARYOON WANDIYOON". This article is no way helpful to the applicants on the contrary goes against them, because of an illegal act two innocent girls have lost their lives, learned counsel tried to convince that it was a case of elopement. Anyhow old traditions of this part of country (although unacceptable in society) do not permit these things which create dishonour of family in society. For the foregoing reasons, at this stage applicants are not entitled for concession of bail, application moved on their behalf is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑383/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.