1985 P Cr (PLP)

Bashir Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1985. The factsgiving rise to this revision briefly are that on 24‑11‑1982, a case under section 354/147, P.P.C. was registered against Fateh Muhammad and four others the petitioners, on the allegation that on 12‑11‑1982, they after having made criminal assault on Mst. Shiban Bibi P.W.1, caught hold of her, gave tier beating, dragged her and removed her loin cloth.

2. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Mst. Sahiba Bibi appeared as P.W.1. She stated that when she was coming back to her house, tile petitioners caught hold her, gave her beating, dragged her and removes: her loin cloth. Muhammad Anwar P.W.2 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.3 supported her statement in all material particulars. Asghar Ali Shah A.S.I had investigated the case.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. the petitioners denies all the incriminating circumstances. They raised plea of false implication. In defence they produced two witnesses on the conclusion of trial, the petitioners were convicted under section 354, P. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. each. The appeal filed by them failed on 8‑1‑1985, hence this revision.

4. The learned counsel submits that the evidence in case under section 354, P.P.C. has not been appreciated in accordance with the guiding principles laid down for the appreciation of evidence to such like cases. Since it is very easy to concoct a case of assault on women and very difficult to rebut the same, the learned Courts below should have been very careful in the appreciation of the prosecution evidence particularly when a case had been registered against the husband of the lady 12 days before the alleged occurrence. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find myself persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that it is very easy to concoct a case of assault on a lady to outrage her modesty and it really becomes difficult to rebut the same, therefore, I propose to appreciate the evidence more carefully. Having appreciated the evidence with care and caution, I find that there is a delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., no explanation whatsoever has been given. No doubt the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the ground of unexplained delay alone but in the case in hand, I find that the evidence of the prosecution also suffers from numerous infirmities. The witnesses are related one. Muhammad Anwar is the friend of the husband of the lady. Mst. Sahiba Bibi who is crucial witness of the case has given evidence with motive other than telling of the truth inasmuch as she denied the existence of case against her husband which was registered before this occurrence. No independent witness from the vicinity was produced to corroborate the complainant. Although she states that she was dragged and given severe beating by the five petitioners yet no medico‑legal report was produced to prove the injuries or marks of violence on her person. For all these reasons, I am of the view that it would be unsafe to sustain conviction on the statement of the complainant and the two eye‑witnesses produced by her. For what has been stated above, the revision is accepted, the convictions and sentences of the petitioners are hereby set aside. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. M. A. K. Petition accepted.