P (PLP)

AKRAM, J.‑This is a petition by one Muhammad Bachhal, a Police Head Constable,‑for special leave to appeal. The facts of the case may be broadly stated as, fellows. In connection with certain incidents relating to a complaint by one Karim Bux for the alleged abduction of his sister Mst. Nihalan, aged about 25 years, by one Nabi Bux and. his confederates, the petitioner and seven others were put upon trial on various charges under the Pakistan Penal Code‑ before the Additional Sessions Judge of Sukkur. As we are concerned with the case of the petitioner only, it is not necessary for us to give here the details of the cases of the seven others mentioned above, five of whom, it may be noticed, were acquitted on appeal to the Chief Court of Sind. With reference to the petitioner, the case for the prosecution was that he had detained Mst. Nihalan in wrongful confinement for some days and then forcibly made her over to certain persons including one Muko who had falsely claimed her to be .his wife. Furthermore, that in order to pave the way for a plausible defence the petitioner bad prepared' an untrue record of certain statements in the name of Mst. Nihalan (Exhibit 6) which were quite contrary to what she had been persistently stating, namely, that she had married Nabi Bux of her own accord and was living with him willingly. The plea taken in defence was a total denial of the allegations made by the prosecution and an assertion that the statements contained in (Exhibit 6) had been correctly recorded. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under sections 220, 366/109 and 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 under section 220, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under section 366/109, and to two years' rigorous im prisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under section 218; the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. On appeal, the Chief Court of Sind, set aside the convictions and sentences under sections 220 and 366/109, as also the sentence of fine under section 218, but maintained the conviction and the substantive sentence of imprisonment under section 218 as before. Against that decision the petitioner has now preferred the present petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. The only question which here arises is whether or not the statements recorded by the petitioner in (Exhibit 6) were really the statements made by Mst. Nihalan; the answer to this obviously depends on the appreciation of the evidence and the credit that is to be given to the testimony of the witnesses in the case. As the issue is purely one of fact, and the Courts below are unanimous in their opinion on the point, this Court sees no reason to allow the petitioner's prayer for special leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A. H Petition dismissed.