1997 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. ABIDA JABEEN — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1997 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. ABIDA JABEEN — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. ABIDA JABEEN — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ziafat Hussain Cheema for Petitioner.
- M. Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja for Respondents Nos. l to 4.
- Mst. Abida Jabeen complainant lodged report in Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi, and got F.I.R. No.353, dated 22-6-1995 under section 354/ 337-A(i)/34, P.P.C. registered against the accused/respondents. In this case, there are four accused, namely, Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Khalid Mahmood Khan, real brothers, Raja Mohsin Aslam and Muhammad Aslam. According to the prosecution story, the complainant Abida Jabeen was an accused in a private complaint, which was filed against her by Mst. Kausar Tasneem under section 459, P.P.C. It was pending in the Court of Sagheer Hussain Shah, Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi. On the day of occurrence i.e. 20-6-1995, it was fixed for evidence. On that date, the present complainant and her co-accused in that complaint, namely, Manzoor Ahmad Qureshi and Javed Ahmad Qureshi were present in the Court. In addition to them, Kausar Tasneem alongwith her prosecution witnesses Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Raja Aslam, Dr. Kaiser, Khalid Mahmood and Mohsin Aslam were also present in the Court. After appearance in the Court, the case was adjourned. The present complainant alongwith Manzoor Ahmad and Javed Ahmad went to the seat of their counsel while Mohsin Aslam, Imtiaz Ahmad, Khalid Mahmood and Raja Aslam came after them and stopped at some distance from the seat of the learned counsel and started waiting there. The complainant wanted to go from the seat of her counsel. Imtiaz Ahmad, Raja Aslam etc. sat near the office seat of Altaf Khan, Advocate. They encircled Manzoor Ahmad Qureshi and Javed Ahmad Qureshi, and started beating them including the complainant. She has stated, in the complaint that she was injured and during the occurrence her clothings were torn. She has stated that she was humiliated _ intentionally in the presence of public at large by the accused and her shirt from the front side of the neck was also torn while Manzoor Ahmad Qureshi was beaten by Mohsin Aslam and Khalid while Javed Ahmad was given beating by Raja Aslam with an iron fist. The complainant and Imtiaz Ahmad were also beaten. When the beating was over, the complainant and her co-injured went to the Court of Saghir Hussain Shah, Magistrate Section 30, to inform the Court about the occurrence and on Court's direction, then went to Police Station Civil Lines to lodge the report. When they reached there, the police directed them to go to the Civil Hospital for medical examination. She went there, obtained the medico-legal report and came back to the police station. In spite of all that F.I.R. was not recorded. She requested in writing and thereafter the aforesaid case was registered against the accused.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 354-A
Applicability of S.354-A, P.P.C.
Section 354-A, P.P.C. applies only in those cases where after stripping of the clothes the lady is made naked and exposed to public view and is not applicable where very small portion of her shirt is torn.
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354/354-A/337-A(i)/34-- Cancellation of bail
Shirt of the complainant lady had been torn from a very small place of its front side and S. 354-A, P.P.C., prima facie, was not attracted
Complainant had no doubt, sustained some injuries but it was a case of simple beating
Order granting bail to the accused was not capricious and was supported by cogent reasons
Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
2. After registration of the case, investigation was carried out and section 354-A, P.P.C. was added. The accused were arrested ii the case. However, they applied for bail after arrest in the Court of Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The case was assigned to Ch. Asad Raza, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, who vide his order, dated 27-7-1995 granted bail to the respondents/accused.
3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order granting bail to the respondents/accused on the following grounds:-- (a) that the fact's of the case do make out a case under section 354-A, P.P.C. According to the learned counsel, this offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, the offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; (b) that, there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime, hence, it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Learned counsel stated that firstly the bail after arrest was rejected but after lapse of 15 days of the said order, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused/respondents which is against the interest of justice; and (c) that heinous offence has been committed and the bail granted to the respondents/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be withdrawn and they be ordered to be arrested.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused has opposed the petition on the following grounds:-- (a) that originally the case was registered ,under section 354 read with section 337-A(i), P.P.C. which are bailable offences. No new material was brought on the record after the registration of case, hence, adding of section 354-A, P.P.C. is improper; and (b) that the contents of the F.I.R. do not show that offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. can be made out against the respondents/ accused. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on a case reported in 1991 PCr.LJ
194. Learned counsel appearing for "the petitioner relies on PLD 1988 SC 726 and 1995 MLD 1254 (Lahore).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also read the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for parties. According to 1995 MLD 1254, the lady was forcibly taken to Jawar field for the purpose of committing Zina with her. In that course, she fell on the ground and the accused tore her shirt and Shalwar and made her naked. The occurrence was witnessed by some persons on raising hue and cry by her. There is no allegation in this case that the lady was made naked. Hence, this judgment is not applicable. In the case reported as PLD 1988 SC 726, the woman was caught from her hair. She was dragged and many blows were given on different parts of her naked body. The facts of this case are also not identical to the case in hand.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon 1991 PCr.LJ
194. According to this judgment, condition regarding stripping off a women of her clothes envisaged by sectione354-A, P.P.C. is fulfilled when the clothes are completely removed making her naked. To interpret the language used in section 354-A, P.P.C. it is appropriate to quote it below for ready reference, which reads as follows:-- "Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her off her clothes. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and stripes her off her clothes and, in that condition exposes her to the public view, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." In this section, the words "stripes her off her clothes and in that condition exposes her to the public view" are very important words. This section applies only in those cases whereafter stripping off the clothes, the lady is made naked and exposed to the public view. It is not applicable in the matter where very small portion of a shirt is torn. In the present case; I especially directed to produce the shirt of the lady before the Court for examination. In the presence of the learned counsel for the parties it was seen which 'is torn from a very small place of its front side. It cannot be denied that there are injuries on the person of the lady but it was a case of simple and pure beating and, at the most, fall under section 354, P.P.C. Hence; at this stage, the tentative assessment is that the offence falls under section 354/337-A(i)/34, P.P.C. and not under section 354-A, P.P.C.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail with cogent reasons. The impugned order is not capricious or of the nature regarding which it can be said that the lower Court failed to apply its mind in the matter. In view of the above, the order granting bail to the respondents/ accused is maintained and the present petition for cancelation of their bail is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-906/L Petition dismissed.