1989 PLP 839 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 18th December, 1988. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 499 of 1979 and Criminal Revision No. 112 of 1972 as the facts in both the revision petitions are same. 2.Chahat Khan son of Sufaid Khan and Mall Khan son of Chahat Khan have challenged the correctness of the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 5‑1‑1972 by virtue of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the petitioners but reduced their sentence under section 365, P.P.C. from three years' R.I. to two years' R.I. only. The sentence of Shadi Khan was reduced from four years' R.I. to two years' R.I. only.

3. Briefly the facts of prosecution version are that Mst. Nasiran, a prosecutrix in this case was married with Jumma P.W.1 resident of village Gharyal Khurd Police Station Narang. She had contracted marriage against the wishes of her father who lodged a complaint against Jumma Khan under sections 376, 363, 342 and 34, P.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur. Mst. Nasiran lived with Jumma. On 7‑12‑1968, while Jumma was away, the accused Chahat Khan, Mall Khan and Shadi Khan came to the house of Jumma and requested his first wife Mst. Larokari to permit Nasiran to accompany them on a false persuasion that a compromise has been arrived at between Jumma Khan and the parents of Mst. Nasiran and she was required to affix her thumb impression. The accused took away Mst. Nasiran in the presence, of Muhammad Shy P.W.S and Chahu P.W.6.

4. Jumma Khan returned to his village on 15‑12‑1968. He thereon lodged a habeas corpus petition before the High Court on 26‑12‑1968. Mst. Nasiran was produced before the Court through the help of a bailiff from Jhuggi of Hidayat Masih, situated within the area of Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore on 27‑12‑1968 at about 12 noon, while the accused managed to get away. On 30‑12‑1968, the statement of Mst. Nasiran was recorded. She stated to the effect that she was married to Jumma, that she was being wrongfully and secretly detained by Shadi Khan, Mall and Chahat Khan and Hidayat Masih. Jumma Khan made a complaint Exh.PA. to S.P., Sheikhupura on 21‑1‑1969 and a case was registered at the Police Station Narang against the petitioners/accused under the order of the S.P., Sheikhupura. Formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded by Haqnawaz H.C.P. The petitioners were challaned in the said case and were charged under section 365.

5. Chahat Khan, Mall Khan were charged under section 365, P.P.C. while Shadi Khan accused was charged under section 312, P.P.C. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and under section 352, Cr.P.C. took up the plea that the two daughters of their maternal‑uncle were abducted by Jumma Khan P.W. for which they filed a complaint at Mirpur. They were falsely implicated due, to that enmity. The learned Magistrate Section 30 by his judgment, dated 2‑1‑1971 convicted Chahat Khan, Mall Khan and. Shadi Khan guilty of offence under section 365, P.P.C. for having abducted Mst. Nasiran P.W.4 and in keeping her secretly in the confinement in the house of Hidayat Masih, sentenced them to undergo three years' R.I. under section 365, P.P.C. Shadi Khan accused was convicted for causing miscarriage of unborn child of Mst. Nasiran and was sentenced to undergo 4 years' R.I. under section 313, P.P.C.

6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners filed appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 5‑2‑1972 maintained the conviction‑ of the petitioners under section 365, P.P.C. However, reduced the sentence from three years to two years and from four years to two years. Hence this revision petition.

7. Darned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is grounded upon untrustworthy and contradictory prosecution version. As a matter of fact Mst. Nasiran was abducted by Jumma Khan P.W. that the petitioners were her relatives, that a complaint was pending in the Court of learned Magistrate Section 30, Mirpur Khas. I am afraid the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are hardly tenable. The record has been perused with the help of the learned counsel. Mst. Nasiran herself in her statement had specifically stated that she was kidnapped and secretly confined in the house of Hidayat Masih. She has supported the prosecution version in entirety. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is in fact a supervisory jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It is not invoked on the principle that a wrong view of law had been taken or erroneous appraisement of the record. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law or irregularity of procedure or neglect of pre‑caution or apparent harshness of the treatment. In the instant case no such point was canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. The upshot of whatever has been stated above is that this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained. The petitioners shall be taken into custody forthwith who shall undergo the remaining sentence in accordance, with law. SA./C‑35/L Appeal dismissed.