1988 PLP 315 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, prosecution a case registered under sections 452, 366, 376, 511 P.P.C. on 27th of October, 1977 at Police Station Jaranwala, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-12-1981 whereby her revision against the acquittal of the respondents was dismissed. The prosecution case against the respondents was that on 27-10-1977 the two respondents entered the house of the petitioner when the adult members were out and forcibly dragged her to the Baithak of Nazir attempted rape on her but before penetration could take place, others were attracted on her alarm on which the respondents pushed her out of the room and escaped. The trial Court believed the petitioner and convicted the respondents under section 452/376/511, P.P.C. On appeal the Sessions Judge examined the entire evidence and noticed the following as a ground for doubting the case:

"The time of occurrence was 9.00 p.m. At that time, people were awake and moving about. Mst. Najma did not receive any injury put up so much resistance so as to frustrate their attempt to untie her shalwar. She admitted in cross-examination that in the Baithak where she was taken by the appellants, the mother and sisters of Nazir Ahmad appellant also lived. Nazir appellant had not untied his chadar, yet when he got discharged the semen fell upon the Shalwar of Mst. Najma. The story as told by Mst. Najma thus appears to be highly improbable. " The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside. The High Court also approved of the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge observing as follows:- "It is to be noticed that the house of the prosecutrix is situated in a densely populated area. A street intervenes between her house and the baithak of the respondents. The baithak of the respondents is a part of a residential house Where among others the female members of the family of Nazir respondent also reside. The prosecutrix was not medically examined after the occurrence. It is therefore, reasonable to presume that she did not bear any marks of violence on her person." The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the evidence including the statement of the prosecutrix was worthy of credit and there was no occasion for her to falsely implicate these persons. We have examined the case and find that the view taken by the Sessions Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court is conformity with the requirement of law for safe administration of criminal justice. There is no ground made out for reappraisal of the evidence and hence leave to appeal is refused. M.I./N-42/5 Petition dismissed.