1999 PLP 346 (YLR)

The Inspector Legal present in Court has submitted that there is no P.D.S.P. working at District Headquarters Mianwali and that he is the Incharge of prosecution branch. He has further submitted that since the trial was to be conducted in the Sessions Court, therefore, the file was sent to the Office of District Attorney for scrutiny.

2. The A.S.I. has allegedly misstated that the file was with the P.D.S.P. When confronted with this situation the A.S.I. has submitted that he had made the statement because according to him there was a case under section 452, P.P.C., and normally such cases are examined by the office of P.D.S.P. This mis‑apprehension of the A.S.I. is misconceived although section 452, P.P.C., is one of the sections of the present case alongwith other sections i.e., section 324, P.P.C. read with section 10(3) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The A.S.I. is, therefore, warned to be careful in future. A copy of this order shall be sent to the S.P., Mianwali for placing this warning on his service record.

3. Coming back to the merits of this case, a perusal of F.I.R. would show that the petitioner entered the house of the complainant at about 6‑00 p.m. while his young sister Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was alone. The petitioner was accompanied by Muhammad Riaz. The latter stood at the door steps of the house whereas the petitioner trespassed into the house. He wanted to commit rape with her, but was sternly resisted by her, whereupon the petitioner put the victim on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil, which caused burns all over her body as would be clear from the medico‑legal report placed on record. The victim was examined under section 164, Cr.P.C., and in her statement she implicated the present petitioner to have committed Zina with her.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the F.I.R., lodged by the brother of the victim, the petitioner wanted to commit rape with her, but on refusal she was set ablaze whereas according to the statement given by the victim under section 164, Cr.P.C., she was actually raped. However, the story of the rape is not supported by the medico‑legal report as the vaginal swabs of the victim were not found stained with semen as per medico‑legal report. It is, therefore, contended that it is a case of further inquiry particularly when there is delay of 3 days in lodging the F.I.R. Apart from that it is contended that the F.I.R., was prompted by one Ghulam Muhammad Sumbal against the‑ petitioner through the complainant who is working with him. As such it is alleged that there is no merit in the prosecution case and that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

5. The bail petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that burns found on the body of the victim prima facie support her contention that she was set at fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body by the petitioner. This fact remained unbelied. Secondly that she had named the petitioner in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., saying that he had ravished her. The Investigating Officer/ D.S.P. also found that there was an attempt of rape and that there were burns on the body of the victim.

6. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the victim is a young girl in the range of 14 to 18 years of age and is unmarried. She was over‑powered by the petitioner and his co‑accused, when she was alone in the house. When she resisted the attempt of Zina, the petitioner sprinkled kerosene oil and set her on fire thereby causing serious burns which were held dangerous to her life in the medico‑legal report. The act of the petitioner is quite cruel and inhumanness as to call for his release on bail at this stage. This bail petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑323/L Bail refused.