1985 P Cr (PLP)

A. R. Tayyab for Petitioner. Muhammad Akbar for the State. Date of haring: 17th June, 1984. Haq Nawaz petitioner was tried for offence under section 354, P.P.C. for outraging the modesty of Mst. Sakina on 11‑8‑1980 at Namazwela near a Jawar field. Mst. Sakina while reporting the matter to the police alleged that after easing herself when she was on her way back to her house, she was caught hold of by Haq Nawaz petitioner who not only caught her breast but also started kissing her. The occurrence was seen by Ghulam Hussain P.W.3 and Muhammad Rafiq P.W.4. The appellant denied the charge. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he produced Muhammad Ali D.W.1 and Haji Ghulam Rasool D.W.2 who stated that the petitioner was of a good moral character. The trial Court convicted the petitioner on 31‑1‑1982 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. The appeal filed by him failed on 16‑5‑1982, hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of the material contradictions in their statements, the complainant and the eye‑witnesses are not reliable. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there is sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and that the ocular evidence really suffers from material contradictions casting doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. In the F.I.R. Mst. Sakina stated that the petitioner had caught her breast and kissed her when she was returning to her house. At trial stage, she stated that the petitioner had dragged her towards Jawar field and her bangles were broken. Ghulam Hussain P.W. stated that when he was attracted to the spot he found petitioner grappling with Mst. Sakina complainant. Muhammad Rafiq P.W.4 stated that when he reached near Jawar field, he found that the petitioner was tearing the shirt of Mst. Sakina. To my mind, the contradictions detailed above, do create reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the witnesses and make the entire case doubtful. It is well‑known that it is very easy to concoct case of outraging modesty or rape and very difficult to rebut the same. I am of the opinion that in such like cases, conviction should not be recorded unless the case is proved beyond reasonable doubts.

4. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and stands discharged of bail bonds. S. G. D. Acquittal ordered.