1994 PLP 1714 (MLD)

Ramzan son of Jalal was sent up for trial by Police Station, Nawankot, Lahore, for having abducted Mst. Razia, daughter of Shaukat Ali, aged 7 years. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment dated 28-6-1989 convicted and sentenced him under section 364-A, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. Prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in complaint Exh.PA lodged by Hakim Ahmad Din, was to the effect that he was present at his Dera when a person emerged from maize crop with a minor girl. The person appeared of shady character, therefore, he was apprehended with the help of Noora and yasin. On apprehension, the said person gave his name as Ramzan. The minor gave her name as Razia Shaukat, daughter of Shaukat Ali, resident of 14-D Gulfishan Colony, Nawankot, Lahore. It was also observed that Ramzan had abducted the minor girl with the intention to sell her. Habibur Rehman Khan Si, P.W.6 had investigated the case. He recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 on the basis of statement Exh.PA of Hakim -Ahmed Din. He recovered Mst. Razia, minor, and handed over to Shaukat Ali, her real father vide memo. Exh.PB. After usual investigation, he challaned the accused.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced six witnesses in all. P.W.11 Noor Muhammad alias Noora stated that he was irrigating his land when he noticed the accused coming out of maize crop. On enquiry, he started abusing them, therefore, he was overpowered. and the female child, aged 7 years, was recovered from him, who gave her particulars. Muhammad Yasin, P.W.2 supported the version given by P.W.1. Muhammad Ayyub, S.I. P.W.3 stated that on 22-6-1986 he was Additional S.H.O., Police Station, Chiniot. On the same day he recorded the statement of Hakim Ahmad Din under section 154, Cr.P.C., which was Exh.PA. Liaqat All, P.W.4 stated that his niece Mst. Razia, seven years of age, went out of her house on 19-6-1986 to bring curd. When she did not return, they started looking for her. On 22-6-1986, they were informed by Police Station Nawankot, Lahore that Mst. Razia had been recovered from Chiniot. He alongwith his brother went to the Police Station. After identifying Mst. Razia, they brought her back. P.W.5 Hakim Ahmed Din, had got the case registered. He had initially arrested the appellant' and recovered the girl. Case was investigated by P.W.6 Habibur Rehman, S.I. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he, however, admitted that he was domestic servant in the house of the Parents of the abducted. He was going on leave. The child was so attached to him that she accompanied him of her own free-will, therefore, he took her to Chiniot. He neither produced any defence evidence nor chose to appear on oath in his defence.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution story is admitted to the extent that the appellant was found with the alleged abductee Mst. Razia at Chiniot but rest of the allegation is denied The abductee was so attached to the appellant that she accompanied him of her own free-will and the appellant took her along. Argued that the ingredients of section 364-A, P.P.C. are missing, therefore, it would not be an offence under section 364-A. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.

5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The defence has not challenged that Mst. Razia was daughter of Shaukat Ali who was resident of Gulfishan Colony, Lahore. It has also not been challenged that since 19-6-1986 she was missing from her house and was recovered from Chiniot on 22-6-1986 when the appellant was arrested there. In the absence of any challenge, it is held that the prosecution story is established beyond doubt that Mst. Razia, aged 7 years, was missing from her house since 19-6-1986 and was recovered from the appellant on 22-6-1986. The only question which requires consideration was what offence had been committed. The argument of the learned counsel that section 364-A, P.P.C. would not be attracted because there is no evidence to establish its ingredients is without substance. The abduction took place on 19-6-1986 and the appellant was apprehended with the child on 22-6-1986. Similarly, she was abducted from Lahore and recovered from Chiniot would clearly indicate that the appellant had taken her there with a view to put her to slavery. Even otherwise, the plea taken by the appellant that the child accompanied him of her free will is nothing because she was not even competent to give consent being 7 years of age only. The contention that the appellant was domestic servant of Shaukat Ali, father of Mst. Razia, therefore, the child was attached to him is also without substance. Uncle of the abductee appeared as a P.W. He was not put this question. This suggestion even if be assumed correct for the sake of argument that he was a domestic servant, yet he should have informed the parents of the child that he was taking her along. Failure establishes beyond doubt his guilty intention. It is also in evidence that at the time of his arrest he resisted which resulted in injuries to his person. All these facts lead to an irresistible conclusion that he had abducted the child with a view to put her to slavery or to lust. I hold the prosecution has been able to establish its ease beyond doubt. The appeal fails which is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant, however, is given benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./R-140/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed