1980 PLP 342 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal calls in question the judgment dated 27th April, 1976 of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's Revision against his conviction and sentence of 4 years' R. 1. and fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 363, P. P. C., was dismissed. A case was ragistered against the petitioner and others under sec tions 366/376, P. P. C. on the allegations that Mst. Anwar Mumtaz a minor of 15 years was kidnapped by them from the custody of her guardian‑father and thereafter the petitioner raped her. Petitioner', defence plea was that the abductee was over sixteen years of age and that she contracted valid marriage with him, out of her free will. The trial Court, the appellate Court and a learned Single Judge in the High Court, on examination of evidence, accepted the prosecution version of the occurrence in so far as the kidnapping part thereof is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only point for consideration at this stage is whether from the admitted material on record a correct conclusion has been drawn, with regard to the age of the abductee on the date of occurrence, namely 4th July, 1962. He has made comparison between the two copies of birth entries produced by the prosecution and the defence, Exh. PE and Exh. DE which show different dates of birth. The date of birth in Exh. DE undoubtedly prima facie supports the petitioner, but on careful scrutiny we have discovered that does not relate to the abductee. Her name is not correctly mentioned in it. Her father's caste and profession mentioned therein are different from what is mentioned in his deposition as a witness. Even his place o residence shown in this copy is wrong. Learned counsel, in order to meet the adverse inference which can be legitimately drawn from these circum stances, relied on the so‑called conduct of the abductee in swearing affidavits and making some admissions qua her name and age which favour the petitioner. We are not impressed by this argument. Material relied upon, as is usual in such like cases, was obtained from the minor when she was still under the influence of the petitioner. It cannot be depended upon. The concurrent findings of the learned Courts below on question of age are unexceptionable. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel. Learned counsel also prayed for reduction of sentence. He has drawn our attention in this behalf to the delay in the hearing of the revision petition in the High Court. This Court normally does not interfere with legal sentence. Moreover, in this case, as noted in the impugned judgment, the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay. This petition is without any force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.