1994 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1994 Mst. Shagufta Bibi unmarried daughter of Inayat aged about 16/17 years had gone to the fields to ease herself at about 7-00 a.m. on 23-10-1992 in Chak No.23/JB District Faisalabad. Appellant Riaz appeared there and on the point of a carbine attempted to commit rape with her but by her alarm her brother complainant Muhammad Younas and Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Arif were attracted to the spot. On seeing the latter the appellant fled away from the spot. Complainant Muhammad Younas went to Police Station Chak Jhumra on 30-10-1992 and recorded F.I.R. No.488.

2. Appellant Riaz was arrested on 30-10-1992 and after investigation he was sent up for trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad who charged him under section 18 read with section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Five prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the State, while the appellant made a deposition only under section 342, Cr.P.C. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, to suffer 15 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. It has also been ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that half of the fine if recovered will be paid to the victim Mst. Shagufta Bibi as compensation. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by the appeal in hand.

4. During the trial 3 prosecution witnesses appeared as eye-witnesses of the occurrence, P.W.2 Mst. Shagufta Bibi, P.W.3 Muhammad Younas and P.W.4 Manzoor. The victim Mst. Shagufta Bibi deposed that the appellant had attempted to commit rape with her on the point of carbine but she raised alarm whereupon her brother Muhammad Younas and two others Manzoor and Arif came running to the spot whereupon the appellant fled away. Complainant Muhammad Younas and P.W.4 Manzoor had corroborated the testimony of the victim in its entirety.

5. In rebuttal there is only the deposition of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the commission of the offence and stated that he had been falsely charged on account of enmity.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that there was previous blood feud enmity between the appellant and the father of the alleged victim and for that reason the appellant had been falsely charged. However, nothing in this respect was specifically stated by the appellant and he contended himself by simple statement that he had been charged on account of enmity. However, this contention of the appellant Was also not worth consideration for the reason that the alleged enmity, which according to him was reason for his false charge, pertained to some blood feud enmity with the person who was engaged with a cousin of the victim. It may be observed that for such a distant motive no young and unmarried girl would make such a statement which would also bring some dishonour to her besides causing any damage to any other person.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that there was a delay of one week in lodging the report in the police station and no satisfactory explanation had been furnished which showed that it was a false charge. It may again be observed that if such an occurrence had not happened, no parent or a brother or a girl will accuse any person of such an ignoble act which would cause some dishonour to the family of the victim as well. However, the explanation has also been furnished for the delay in the vary F.I.R. on the ground that the family of the accused had approached the complainant party, for a compromise with the request that the matter may not be reported. The conduct of the appellant has also to be seen. He did not deem it necessary even to make a deposition on oath or produce defence witness and contended himself by denying the charge in one line sentence that he had been falsely charged.

8. Consequently the evidence produced by the State had brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt whatsoever. He was appropriately convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. N.H.Q./893/FSC Appeal dismissed.