1984 PLP 1571 (MLD)

Ch .Muhammad Yamin for the State. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1984. Akbar alias Gadda, aged 55 years son of Din Muhammad and his paternal-uncle Sardar alias Dara, aged 60 years, were tried for kidnapping anti committing rape on Mst. Surayya Bibi aged about 15/16 years. The Assistant Commissioner, Narowal, on 19-4-1971, convicted Akbar under section 376, P.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof to further suffer R.I. for one year. He was also convicted under section 366, P.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of its payment to further suffer R.I. for one year. His sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Sardara was convicted under section 376, P.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of its payment to further undergo R.I. for one year. They have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences.

2. According to the allegations Akbar appellant, step-brother of Sher Muhammad first informant, P.W. forcibly kidnapped daughter of the first informant, Mat. Surayya Bibi aged 15/16 years, when she was sitting in the sugar-cane field of Mauza Badhat Cheema, District Sialkot for easing herself in May 1969 at evening time. Her sister was sitting near that field. Akbar appellant forcibly took away Met. Surayya Bibi on horseback. She was kept in a rented house in Kamoke where the appellants repeatedly committed rape upon her. She was then taken away to Shakargarh by Akbar appellant but police intercepted him at Bus Stand Natowal and recovered the abductee from Akbar appellant. Sher Muhammad, father of the abductee, lodged F.I.R., at Police Station Rayya, District Sialkot, four miles away from the spot, on 1-6-1969 at about 12 noon, wherein he stated that the occurrence had taken place about 8/9 days earlier and all that time was spent by him in getting the certified copy of the birth entry of Mst. Surayya Bibi. After investigation appellants were challaned in Court.

3. The appellants denied the charge. Akbar appellant stated that abductee was daughter of his brother and he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Nawab Din and Ghulam Muhammad D.Ws, were examined to show that Akbar appellant was married to the daughter of Munshi, brother of Sher Muhammad first informant, but Munshi married his daughter in District Sheikhupura without getting divorce from Akbar appellant on which Akbar filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights due to which Sher Muhammad first informant had a grudge against him. It was also stated by the appellants that the abductee was a woman of easy virtue and Akbar appellant used to protest against it with her parents.

4. I am informed that appellants have been released from jail after serving the sentence.

5. The trial Court believed the testimony of P.Ws. Mst. Surayya Bibi abductee, her sister Mst. Rafaqat, Akbar Ali and Yaqoob. The recovery of abductee from Akbar appellant was proved by P.Ws. Akbar Ali, Sher Muhammad first informant and the Investigating Officer. The testimony of abductee Mat. Surayya Bibi is supported by her sister Mst. Rafaqat and is further corroborated by Akbar Ali and Yaqoob P.Ws. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is consistent and uniform. Sher Muhammad and Mst. Barket Bibi, parents of the abductee, further supported it and the medical evidence also supported the ocular evidence. Akbar Ali and Yaqoob P.Ws., were independent witnesses. The abductee and her father, the first informant, are not expected to falsely implicate the appellants on the charge of rape. The abductee was recovered from Akbar appellant. The medical evidence supports her testimony that rape was committed with her. According to her birth entry she was born on 26-2-1954 and at the time she was abducted her age was less than 16 years. There is nothing on record to show that she was a consenting party. The medical evidence does not conflict with the ocular evidence nor does it show that abductee was a woman of easy virtue. The defence plea is not probable. I agree with the findings of the trial Court. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction as well as sentences of the appellants are upheld. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed. S.G.D. Appeal dismissed.