1999 PLP 1457 (SCMR)

KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑The appellant/convict by this Criminal Appeal by leave of the Court granted on .27‑7‑1997 assails the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala whereby he has been convicted under sections 10(3)'and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and sentenced under section 11 of the Ordinance to life imprisonment, a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months' imprisonment and under section 10(3) of the Ordinance to ten years' R.I. and ten stripes, as well as the order dated 18‑2‑1997 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Federal Shariat Court as barred by time having been filed with a delay of 103 days, without going into the merits of the case. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to afford him an opportunity to present his case on merits. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Ranjha, complainant sent an application from judicial lock‑up to the Superintendent, of Police, District Sheikhupura through Superintendent Jail, Sheikhupura (Exh. PD) alleging that Mst. Sakina Bibi, her daughter aged 16/17 years has been abducted forcibly and deceitfully by Miraj Din appellant, Mst. Bashiran Bibi wife of Sher Muhammad and Sher Muhammad son of Allah Ditta, and that as the complainant had doubt on these persons being involved in the abduction of his daughter, he in the presence of Muhammad Zubair son of Atta Muhammad and Muhammad Akrain son of Dil Muhammad, caste Sindhu Jai, residents of the village, beseeched the accused to return his daughter but they tried to put him off in the beginning and ,latter promised to return Mst. Sakina Bibi, his daughter within four days, therefore, he did not take any action and remained silent. However, on 24‑7‑1988, sister‑in‑law of Miraj Din appellant got him (Ranjha, the complainant in the instant case) and others arrested by having registered a case of murder of Muhammad Akram against them and they were then arrested under section 302, P.P.C. and due to their detention he could not have the case of abduction of his daughter registered. Ranjha, complainant, further alleged that his daughter is still in the custody of the accused and is being subjected to Zina by Miraj Din accused/appellant. On the basis of this complaint (Exh. PD)., F.I.R. No. 362 (Exh. PD/1) was registered by the Police on 16‑9‑1988, wherein, however, age of the girl/alleged abductee was mentioned as 15/16 years as against the age of 16/17 years mentioned in the complaint. Talib Hussain, A.S.I./P.W.11 proceeded to investigate on 17‑9‑1988 and recorded the statements of Muhammad Zubair and Muhammad Akram P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 2‑1‑1989. He got information that Miraj Din accused was detained in Camp Jail, Lahore in some other cases. He submitted an application before the Ilaqa Magistrate for the transfer of Miraj Din to District Jail, Sheikhupura and in this manner he was made to join the investigation and was arrested in this case on 2‑1‑1989. On 4‑1‑1989, he arrested Mst. Bashiran Bibi accused in the case from Dera of Allah Ditta in the area of Warburton. On 17‑1‑1989 Miraj Din was medically examined and thereafter, he was sent to judicial lock‑up. On 11 ‑ I ‑ 1989, Talib Hussain A. S. 1. statedly recovered Mst. Sakina Bibi abductee from the Dera of Allah Ditta in the area of Police Station Warburton and recorded her statement. On 12‑1‑1989, she (Mst. Sakina Bibi) was produced before the Magistrate who recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She was got medically examined on 14‑1‑1989 from the W.M.O., District Headquarters Hospital, Sheikhupura. The challan was ultimately submitted against Miraj Din appellant alone. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses including Ranjha P.W.3 and Mst. Sakina Bibi P.W.4, the complainant and the victim respectively. Dr. Shahida Majid appeared as P.W.2 and deposed on oath that she medically examined the victim on 14‑11‑1989. No marks of violence were found on any part of the body of the victim, specially on her breast and genitalia. The hymen was found torn and healed up. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. Two vaginal swabs were taken and sent for chemical examination. But no report of chemical examination is available on the record. Ranjha, P.W.3 complainant in his statement at the trial deposed that about four years ago he was present at the tubewell of Ch. Atta Muhammad near his village and Miraj Din accused, his mother Mst. Bashiran Bibi, his father Shera were also present there. Mst. Sakina. Bibi, her daughter, went out to ease herself. After his daughter had gone out, the three accused also left. His daughter did not come back so they searched her and came to know that she had been taken away by Miraj Din. He added that he went to one Allah Ditta of Kot Anwar in that connection and also inquired from Miraj Din about his daughter but he expressed his ignorance about his daughter. Ch. Allah Ditta aforesaid told them that the accused had confined his daughter in a room. He took Ch. Zubair and Muhammad Akram to the accused for restoration of his daughter but he kept on putting off the matter. Later on Miraj Din disappeared from the place and in the meanwhile, he, his wife Hussaina Bibi and his son Bagga were arrested in a murder case got registered by the widow of the deceased. He added that he sent an application to the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, from Jail and later on a case was registered and the police recovered his daughter when he was still in the judicial lock‑up. He added that Miraj Din had kept his daughter at various places and had been committing Zina with her. In cross‑examination he admitted that he had not himself seen Miraj Din taking away his daughter, Mst. Sakina Bibi and no other person had told him that they had seen the accused taking Sakina Bibi with him. He also deposed that during search they had never met the, accused as he had disappeared. It was added that in fact they had been visiting relatives of Miraj Din who had been promising to get his daughter restored. He also stated that when Allah Ditta told them that the accused had confined his daughter in a room they went to the said room to get her rescue but at that time the accused had disappeared from there with his daughter. It was admitted as correct that in the application Exh.PD he had stated that in the presence of Zubair and Akram he had asked the accused to restore his daughter but the accused put off the matter on one pretext or the other but later on he promised in the presence of aforesaid persons that he will restore his daughter after four days. It was also stated that before he was sent to the judicial lock‑up in connection with the murder case the accused had not met him personally after the abduction of his daughter. He, however, denied the suggestion as incorrect that he has falsely implicated Miraj Din accused in this case as they had been involved in the murder case of brother of Miraj Din and it was in consequence of the said murder case that they implicated the accused in this case falsely in order to take revenge. Mst. Sakina Bibi, the alleged abductee/P.W.4, at the trial deposed that four years ago, in the evening, on the day of occurrence, around 7 p.m., the mother of Miraj Din accused namely Mst. Bashiran came to their house and took her along on the pretext of answering the call of nature. When she went out with her Miraj Din accused and his father Sheru were present there. They gagged her mouth, made her smell some intoxicant after which she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness she found herself in Kot Allah Ditta of Police Station Warburton. She added that she was confined in a room ‑at the Dera of Anwar Mann where Miraj Din accused continued committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. She was kept there for three days and after that she was taken to Sindh where Miraj Din kept her for seven months. From Sindh he brought her back to the Dera of Anwar Mann from where the Police recovered her after breaking open the lock. She added that after her recovery her statement was recorded by the Illaqa Magistrate and that her statement so recorded Exh. PE bears her thumb‑impression. In her cross‑examination she stated that when the accused gagged her mouth she did not make noise because it all happened suddenly; that the accused had taken her to Kot Allah Ditta in a wagon; except the accused and his parents nobody else was present in the said wagon; a driver was, however, present who was driving the same. She added that they reached Kot Allah Ditta at 10 p.m. At that time she was unconscious. She had gained consciousness 1 or 1/1‑2 hour after reaching there and the accused told her that they had reached there at 10 p.m. She added that there was only one house at the Dera of Ch. Anwar Maan and that house was of Miraj Din accused. The accused had taken her to Sindh by Bus and she was taken to Khanpur Katora in Sindh. They had left in the evening. Other passengers were also present in the bus and she had not tried to raise alarm while travelling by bus. The accused had threatened her and had asked her to keep quiet. They alighted from the bus at Khanpur and at Khanpur the accused had kept her in the house of his patemal uncle named Bara. She admitted that Khanpur Katora is in Punjab wid not in Sindh. At Khanpur Miraj Din used to work at a brick kiln. His uncle also used to work at that brick kiln. She did not try to raise alarm and whenever she went out to ease herself the accused and his other relatives used to be with her. She admitted that she and the aunt of the accused also used to go to the brick kiln as labourers. A number of other labourers also used to work there. The accused had threatened her and had asked her not to inform any one at the brick kiln about her abduction. She further deposed in the cross‑examination that the accused had brought her from there to the Dera of Anwar Maan by train and on way back she had not tried to raise alarm. They got down from the train at Warburton Railway Station. The Dera of Anwar Mann was at a distance of 3/4 acres from the Railway Station of Warbuton and that they had remained there for three days before the raid was conducted by the police. She further admitted that in her statement Exh. PE she had mentioned before the learned Illaqa Magistrate that Bashiran the mother of Miraj Din accused had come to their house and had taken her along on the pretext of easing, but while deposing so she confronted with Exh. PE wherein it was not found so recorded. She added that she had mentioned in the said statement that the accused had taken her to Sindi, but she confronted with Exh. PE wherein it is not so recorded. She denied the suggestion as incorrect that she had made a false statement and that they had got this case falsely registered as a counter‑blast to the murder case of the brother of the accused in which her father, mother and brother had been arrested. Sh, however, accepted the suggestion as correct that as excess was committed with her family by getting them involved in a murder case, therefore, they also felt the necessity in getting the instant case registered against the accused. Muhammad Zubair P.W.5 deposed that about four years ago Mst. Sakina. Bibi the daughter of Ranjha/complainant had been abducted. They suspected Miraj Din accused of having abducted her. He, therefore, alongwith Ranjha had been visiting the Dera of Muhammad Anwar Maan in Kot Allah Ditta to inquire about Mst. Sakina Bibi. He added that they met there Sher Muhammad the father of the accused and Mst. Bashiran the mother of the accused and asked them for restoration of the abductee and they kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It was added that they asked Ch. Anwar Ali to exercise his influence in the matter but even then the abductee was not restored by them and as Ch. Anwar Ali exerted pressure on them they left his Dera and went to some other place. He, in cross‑examination admitted that Akram was the brother of Miraj Din; that a case about the murder of Akrain was registered against Ranjha, the complainant, and his wife, that Ranjha was arrested in the murder case of Akram and sent to Jail; and that the present case was registered subsequent to the arrest of Ranjha in the said murder case. He also accepted the suggestion as correct that the occurrence regarding the murder of Akrarn had taken place at his Dera. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that Ranjha complainant had got registered the present case under his instructions and that this case was got registered to counter the murder case of Akram. Muhammad Akram who has been mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. as the second person in whose presence Miraj Din accused/appellant was requested to return Mst. Sakina Bibi appeared as P.W.10 and deposed that he has not witnessed his occurrence and did not see any one going along Mst. Sakina Bibi. He was declared hostile and was cross‑examined and in cross‑examination he also denied the suggestion as incorrect that on 22‑7‑1988 in his presence and also in the presence of Zubair, She Muhammad, his sons Akram, Miraj Din and wife Mst. Bashiran had come to the Dera of Muhammad Zubair to take away their remaining articles/luggage lying there. He also denied the suggestion as incorrect that in their presence Ranjha had demanded from them that his daughter Mst. Sakina Bibi be restored. Talib Hussain, A.S.I./P.W.11 had arrested Miraj Din appellant on 2‑1‑1989 after obtaining orders of his transfer‑from Camp Jail, Lahore to District Jail Sheikhpura where he was being detained in connection with some other case. Miraj Din/appellant in his statement denied the allegations and deposed that he has been involved falsely in the case as a counterblast of the murder case of his brother in which mother, father and brother of Mst. Sakina were arrested. The above is the resume of the total evidence produced in the case. Learned trial Court recorded the conclusion that Mst. Sakina Bibi, aged 18 years, was abducted by Miraj Din and was subjected to Zina‑bi‑Jabr by Miraj Din who was kept in his custody for at east seven months, whereafter she was recovered by the police from the Dera where the complainant alongwith P.W.5 had been going for the return of the abductee Sakina Bibi. The medical examination proves the case against the accused for the commission of the offence with Sakina Bibi coupled with her statement while appearing as P.W.4. The plea that the case is counterblast was repelled on the ground that the occurrence of abduction was earlier to the murder of Akram, brother of the appellant, and as such it cannot be said that the present case is a counterblast. It is unfortunate that learned trial Court failed to scrutinize the prosecution case in depth and, thus, was not able to find out the inherent discrepancies in the prosecution case. Ranjha P.W.3 in the complaint has not mentioned the place where he had made the demand of restoration of her daughter to Mairaj Din in the presence of Zubair P.W.5. In his statement at the trial he stated that he had gone to one Allah Ditta of Kot Anwar in that connection and enquired from Miraj Din about his daughter but he expressed his ignorance. He added that Allah Ditta had told him that the accused had confined her in a room. He then took Ch. Zubair and Muhammad Akram to the accused for the restoration of his daughter but he kept on putting off and later on he disappeared from that place. Ranjha in his cross‑examination admitted that he had never met Miraj Din and had not made any such demand from him and that it was his relatives to whom he had been visiting and who had been promising to get her daughter restored. Mst. Sakina Bibi, on the other hand, stated that when she regained conscious, she found herself in Kot Allah Ditta of Police Station Warburton and that she was confined at the Dera of Anwar Maan. Even in cross-examination she repeated that she was taken to Kot Allah Ditta in a wagon. She then claims to have been taken to Khanpur and then in Sindh Province but in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. she had not stated anything as to, her being taken to Sindh. Her statement read as a whole, including the cross‑examination, would show that she has been telling lies and, in any case, when she was taken away from their house she was a willing party and on the basis of that statement, she being aged 18 years as stated by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, the offence of abduction at all is not made out. Further, Mst. Sakina Bibi P.W.4 admitted in cross‑examination that they felt the necessity of getting the instant case registered against the appellant as excess had been committed with her family by getting them involved in the murder case. Muhammad Zubair P.W.5 the so‑called independent witness stated that he alongwith Ranjha had been visiting the Dera of Muhammad Anwar Maan in Kot Allah Ditta to inquire about Mst. Sakina Bibi and there they met Sher Muhammad, father and Mst. Bashiran mother of the accused and asked them for restoration of the abductee. Thus, he belied Ranjha P.W.3, who had in his examination‑in‑chief stated that Miraj Din appellant had met them and he had promised to return the abductee. The Dera to which they had gone, as per statement of Ranjha complainant/P.W.3 was of one Allah Ditta of Kot Anwar whereas according to Muhammad Zubair P.W.5 it was Dera of Muhammad Anwar Maan in Kot Allah Ditta. The prosecution witnesses have given dirvergent and contradictory statement as to the Dera and the location where demand of restoration of Sakina Bibi was made where she was kept during the process of abduction and from where she was allegedly recovered by the police. Mst. Sakina Bibi P.W.4 stated that she found herself in Kot Allah Ditta Police Station Warburton. Muhammad Zubair P.W.5 stated that he had visited with Ranjha the Dera of Muhammad Anwar Mann in Kot Allah Ditta to inquire about Mst. Sakina Bibi, while Talib Hussain, ASI/P.W.11, the Investigating Officer stated that she (Mst. Sakina Bibi) was recovered from the Dera of Allah Ditta in the arpa of Police Station Warburton. Neither Muhammad Anwar Maan nor Allah Ditta were produced by the prosecution and there is no explanation as to the place/Dera in Kot Allah Ditta where Mst. Sakina Bibi was kept. Again the date of alleged occurrence of abduction has been kept vague intentionally. It was also not brought on record as to when Miraj Din appellant was arrested. In any case, he was taken into custody in the instant case on 2‑1‑1989 from the Camp Jail, Lahore. Mst. Sakina Bibi was recovered on 11‑1‑1989. She was admittedly neither in the custody of Miraj Din appellant at that time nor it is the case of the prosecution that she was in the custody of any relative of the accused/appellant. Mst. Sakirra in her statement deposed that the accused had brought her back to the Dera of Anwar Maan by train and they had remained there for three days before raid was conducted by the police. So, according to her statement, she, alongwith the accused/appellant, had arrived at the said Dera three days prior to 11‑1‑1989 whereas Miraj Din appellant was found detained in Camp Jail at Lahore on 2‑1‑1989. Apparently Mst. Sakina P.W.4, the alleged victim had been telling lies to the Court. The report of swabs of the Chemical Examiner has not been produced. So, merely because the hymen was found torn would not provide a basis, in the circumstances, to hold that Miraj Din has been subjecting Mst. Sakina Bibi to Zina. Mst. Sakina Bibi has been found to have been telling lies on her own showing and as such her sole testimony as to her abduction and commission of Zina in the face of her own admission that they had felt the necessity of having instant case registered as excess had been committed with her family due to involvement in the murder case, cannot form basis of holding the appellant guilty. Had these features been noticed by examining the evidence in its true perspective, learned trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that the evidence of the proseeutrix and the other prosecution witnesses is confidence inspiring. These factors also remained unnoticed by learned Judges of the Federal Shariat Court as they had dismissed the appeal of the appellant by time without going into the merits of the case. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant vide order dated 27‑7‑1997/6‑10‑1997. Order granting leave to appeal reads as under:‑‑ Learned Judges of the Federal Shariat Court refused to examine the merits of the case observing as under and holding that the appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 10 days:‑‑ "It transpires from the record that the impugned judgment was passed on 10‑2‑1995 whereas the instant jail appeal has been filed on 6‑6‑1996. According to rule 18(l) (a) of Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981 an appeal shall be presented before the Court within sixty days from the date of order or decision appealed from. Although it has been provided in the said rule that the Court may for sufficient cause extend the period, it is noteworthy that the requisite sufficient cause which had to be duly and properly explained by the appellant or his counsel in the memo. of appeal has neither been explained nor any other reason has been placed on record for the inordinate delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. No application for condonation of the same has either been filed by him. We are fully conscious of the fact that in criminal cases the law of limitation should not be made applicable in its strict sense because in such cases question of liberty of a citizen is involved, however, the rules framed by the Federal Shariat Court in this respect pertains to Hudood Laws which are basically criminal laws and any long delay in filing appeal should, therefore, be properly explained otherwise, in the absence of that, the appeals cannot be entertained. Since no sufficient cause or plausible explanation could be found out to condone the delay in the instant case, both the learned counsel agree that according to aforementioned rule the appeal is not competent on the ground of limitation." The appeal was, thus, held to have been filed with a delay of 103 days counting the period from 10‑12‑1995 (the date on which judgment was announced by the trial Court) to 6‑6‑1996 (the date on which the Jail appeal was received in the office of the Federal Shariat Court). We have examined the record and find that Jail Appeal of the appellant was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the Registrar, Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad vide his Memorandum dated 12‑5‑1996 which was received by the office/Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court on 6‑6‑1996. If this period of 25 days i.e. from 12‑5‑1996 (the date on which Jail appeal was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent) to 6‑6‑1996 (the date on which Jail appeal was received in the office of Federal Shariat Court) had been taken note of, the delay in fling the Jail appeal would not be of 103 days but of 78 days. The record of the case further shows that copy of the judgment of the trial Court was not supplied to the appellant directly by the trial Court as the copy of judgment annexed with the Jail appeal had been supplied on an application on 18‑1‑1996. The person receiving the copy from the trial Court and delivering the same to the convict and then the Jail Superintendent must have taken some time to forward, the appeal submitted to him by the convict. If these days so consumed are also taken into consideration and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant before the Federal Shariat Court could be said to have been filed with the delay of about fifty days. The circumstances which the appellant was facing have been narrated by him in paragraph 2 of the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the learned Federal Shariat Court and the same read as under:‑ These circumstances show the helplessness of the appellant and considering the fact that it was the first and the only appeal provided by law for examining on merits the legality and propriety of his conviction and sentence, it was/is just and proper that the record of the trial Court have been/is examined and gone through. Learned Judges of the Federal Shariat Court also failed to take notice that the Jail appeal was filed under rule 19 of the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and not under rule 18 of the said Rule 19 of the said Rules reads as under:‑‑ ‑ "

19. Appeal from jail.‑‑‑(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 17 or rule 18, where an accused is confined in jail and is not represented by a counsel, he may file an appeal through the Superintendent of the Jail where he is confined. (2) An accused filing an appeal from a jail shall expressly state whether he desires to be represented at State expense or desires to be heard in person. " Rules 17 and 18 of the said Rules are reproduced as originally framed vide notification, dated 25th January, 1981:‑‑

17. Forms and contents of appeal. ‑‑(1) An appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant himself, or by his counsel, if any, and shall be accompanied by eight copies thereof with similar number of the order containing the decision of the Court of Session appealed from. (2) Every memorandum shall set forth concisely and under distinct numbered heads, the grounds of objection to the order of the Court of Session appealed from without any argument or narrative. (3) Every appeal shall be placed in a folder specified by an order made by the Chairman in this behalf." "

18. Presentation of appeal.‑(1) Every appeal shall be presented personally by the appellant himself, or by his counsel, if any, to the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Chief Justice, at the principal seat of the Court or the registry office of the Province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certificate that a similar appeal was no instituted at the principal seat of the Court or at a branch registry. (3) Where an appeal is not drawn up in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, it may be returned to the appellant or the counsel, if any, to bring it in conformity with the provisions of rule 17: Provided that an appeal received, by transfer from a High Court or Court of Session, or from an accused who is confined in jail and is not represented by a counsel, not being in conformity with rule 17, shall not be returned: Provided further that the Court may ask the appellant to supply additional copies of appeals, documents and such other information as it may deem necessary to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the rule. (4) The Registrar or the officer authorised under sub‑rule (1) shall, on being satisfied that the appeal fulfils the requirements of these rules, cause it to be registered and, under the directions of the Chairman, inform the appellants and his counsel, if any, of the date on which the appeal shall be taken up by a Bench for preliminary hearing: Provided that the Bench may, without fixing an appeal for preliminary hearing admit it for regular hearing. Rule (I‑A) was added in Rule 18 vide notification dated 28‑11‑1981 which reads:‑‑ 'An appeal shall be presented to the Court within sixty days from the date of order or decision appealed from'. " Rule 19 read with Rules 17 and 18 as originally framed and notified would show that a convict lodged in jail was relieved of the technicalities of the form and contents of the appeal contained in Rule 17 and the condition of presenting the appeal personally or through a counsel prescribed in Rule 18, in view of the non obstante clause contained in Rule

19. So, an accused confined in jail who is not represented by a counsel can file an appeal through the Superintendent of Jail concerned "notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 17 or Rule 18", as the formalities and other conditions prescribed in these rules does not apply to such an appeal of the accused confined in jail. This was the manifest intention of the Draftsman or the framers of these rules. Later, rule (I‑A) prescribing period of limitation was added but the non obstante clause contained in Rule 19 was not amended so as to limit its application to the purpose and objective manifested in originally framed Rules 17 and

18. It was necessary for the Draftsman while adding sub‑rule (1‑A) in rule 18 to have suitably amended rule 19 as well, so as to retain the intention of Rules 17, 18 and 19 as originally framed and notified. As Rule 19 presently stands it can be urged, in the presence of non obstante clause that any of the conditions contained in either of the Rules 17 and 18 cannot be pressed into service in case of appeal of a convict filed from jail. We may also observe that law normally confers on Appellate Courts power to condone the delay in filing an appeal but no such provision has been made in the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981. These rules may be amended so as to include the power to condone the delay in filing appeals in appropriate cases. We may also note that if an appeal filed under Rule 18 is filed beyond the period of sixty days prescribed in Rule 18(1‑A) and the Court finds that interest of justice demands examination on merits of the legality or the propriety of the judgment/order passed or conviction and sentence awarded, the Federal Shariat Court has the power to hold the scrutiny in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction vesting under Article 203‑DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In the present case, considering condition of the appellant and the fact that no male person is available to prosecute the litigation on his behalf and he was an utterly helpless person, the delay involved is excusable. In any case interference is called for considering the fact that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant Miraj Din, and in these circumstances the conviction and sentence awarded to him is illegal and unjust. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Federal Shariat Court dated 18‑2‑1997 and that of the learned trial Court dated 10‑12‑1995 and acquit the appellant of the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. The above are the reasons for our short order of even date whereby we accepted the appeal and ordered the acquittal of the appellant forthwith. N.H.Q./M‑291/S Appeal accepted.