1977 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2904/B of 1976, decided on 1st October 1976. ‑‑ S. 497‑Eye‑witnesses of occurrence categorically denying prosecu trix version of her rape and on contrary stating prosecutrix to be a woman of bad character and case stated to be a mere fabrication due to enmity‑Report of Chemical Examiner not yet received‑Bail confirmed, in circumstances..‑[Bail]. Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner. Hafiz Tairq for the State. A case is registered against the petitioners under section 376/34, P. P. C. The prosecutrix in this case is Mst. Kanizan. She has stated in the F. I. R that she went to collect flour from the Flour Mill of the petitioners. When she went inside, the petitioners held her and Mahmood petitioner gave her a danda blow, which hit on her left arm. She fell down. Din Muhammad petitioner is alleged to have continued to hold her while Mahmood petitioner took her shalwar off and put his penis in the rectum of Mst. Kanizan. She went on raising alarm, and on hearing the alarm were attracted to the scene of crime Murid and Allah Ditta. By then Mahmood petitioner had finished his job, and on seeing these two eye‑witnesses the petitioners ran away. According to the medical evidence there was a contused swelling on the back of her left elbow joint but the opinion of the medical officer is that she was habitual to sexual intercourse and that there were no marks of violence seen on or around her private parts. The injury on the left elbow joint was simple in nature. Two swabs were sent to the Chemical Examiner, But the investigating officer informs me that the result has not yet been received. It is strange that in the F. I. R. it is stated that Mahmood petitioner had put his penis into the arse of the woman whereas there is no indication in the medical report as to whether her arse had been examined. In any case, the report of the Chemical Examiner has also not been received. In the F. I. R. two eye‑witnesses of the occurrence are mentioned. These are Murid and Allah Ditta. Both have not supported the prosecution version. Murid has clearly stated that Mst. Kanizan had got a false case registered against the petitioners, that she was a woman of bad character and that the petitioners had not committed rape with her. He has stated that she has falsely implicated the petitioners because of her enmity with them. Allah Ditta had stated that he dad not know anything about the occurrence and was not a witness of the same. He neither knew the prosecutrix nor knew the names of the alleged accused persons. He further stated that he did nest know that any case was registered against the present petitioners and that he had not made any statement before the police as an eye‑witness of this occurrence under section 161, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for the State informs me that the challan against the petitioners had been sent up Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits or evidence in this case collected by the investigating agency, I am of the view that the already granted interim pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners should be confirmed. It is hereby confirmed. This petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.