1975 P Cr (PLP)

The police officer who has carried out the investigation in this case has not been examined by the prosecution at the trial but it seems the investiga tion as based on the F.

1. R. of the complainant was completed and the applicant was challaned to the trial Court where he took his trial with the result already mentioned above.

3. The applicant when questioned at the trial first stated when asked about the complainant having given him a blow with the bottle on account of which he bled he said that when he was passing some woman had hit something and again said that he could not say if he was hit by a woman or by Rashid. (Rashid is P. W. 3 in this case). The applicant also admitted that he has received an injury. He alleged enmity against P. W. Rashid. In answer to the last question he stated as follows: "The complainant is on illicit terms with Rashid who is our neighbour. She had been on visiting terms. I have given with others to Rashid to tell him that it was not proper. On that Rashid exchanged hot words with me and threatened to see me. It was at 5-30 p.m. at 7 p.m. when I came out of the house and looked by side of house of Rashid. Rashid and the complainant were standing talking. When I passed by them some thing hit me. I sit down there. After 1 recovered from the shock I went away. Then I was implicated in this case."

4. The applicant has examined one witness in defence who is Naimuddin.

5. The prosecution has examined the complainant Mst. Sughra, her husband P. W. Fazal Din, 1s. W. Rashid, Yousuf (P. W. 4) and mashir Lal Muhammad (P. W. 5).

6. The complainant in her evidence has supported the prosecution case and deposed to the same facts as are detailed in the narrative of the prosecu tion story given above in the paragraphs in the beginning of the judgment. It will appear from her evidence that the applicant had actually teased her and also lifted her veil up and invited her to go with him to a picture as also eat sweets. Thereupon she had given a blow or blows with her empty bottle of medicines on the face of the applicant from which injury he bled. I find from her cross-examination that she has not been shaken at all. She has denied the allegation of the defence that she was on illicit terms with P. W. Rashid and used to visit him at his house. This allegation has also been denied by P. W. Rashid himself in his cross-examination. The complainant woman it appears sufficiently from the record is an independent and dis interested witness and she has no enmity or animus against the applicant to falsely implicate him for the present offence unless what she is stated was the truth which seems to be so.

7. The complainant woman is supported by the eye-witness P. W. Rashid who has, inter alia, deposed that on the day of the occurrence at the time of the incident he had come out of his house and found a woman clad in a black burgs going ahead of him. The present applicant Siddiq, who was his neighbour, was following her. When they proceeded a few paces ahead the present applicant caught hold of that woman. She hit him with the bottle which she was carrying. He ran to them. Yousuf and Fazal also came. The applicant was bleeding from the lip. The woman said that the applicant had cut jokes with her and had caught hold of her. That woman told them that she had come to the dispensary of Dr. Latif for treatment. In this evidence by P. W. Rashid he has not been shaken by his cross-examination lie also scans to be an independent and disinterested witness as such his evidence sufficiently corroborates the version as put forward by the complainant woman against the applicant.

8. P. W. Fazal Din, the husband of the complainant woman, also gives corroborative evidence to that of his wife. He states, truer alia, that at the time of occurrence he had taken his wife from Latifabad to Paratabad for treatment of Dr. Latif who was treating her since before that. At a distance of 40 to 50 paces from the dispensary of Dr. Latif this witness left his wife and asked her to go to the dispensary while he himself went to take money from his friend. He returned after 15 minutes. On the way he came to know that some woman had been molested by Muhammad Siddiq brother of the Chairman. When he came to his wife at dispensary of the doctor which had not yet opened he found her standing with many persons, men and women. She informed him that a young man had cut jokes with her on the road and had caught hold of her. This witness then informed her that he was the brother of the Chairman. Then some of the persons stand ing there took P. W. Fazal Din to the house of the Chairman. The Chairman met him and he apologised on behalf of the applicant and then told this witness to do what he liked. Then P. W. Fazal Din came with his wife to the police station where the latter lodged her report. This witness, the husband of the complainant woman, had also not been shaken in his cross-examination as I find from his deposition. He also corroborates the version of the complainant woman who immediately com plained of the misbehaviour of the applicant to her husband. Another witness Yousuf (P. W. 4) was also examined by the prosecution but he says that he did not see anything nor he saw the applicant. But he stated that , the woman said that a boy was teasing her and inviting her to picture. 1 also stated that P. W. Rashid was there and many others had collected. However, the evidence of this witness Yousuf, who also appears to be an independent witness, proves the presence of P. W. Rashid at the place of occurrence at the time of incident, otherwise his evidence is of no help to the prosecution case.

9. From the above discussion of the evidence led by the prosecution it will be seen that there is sufficient evidence on record as brought by the prosecution to prove the charge as framed against the applicant for which he has been convicted. He has clearly assaulted a woman knowing it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty, which he has in fact done in the circumstances of the present case. His conduct towards the complainant woman is nothing short of reprehensible misbehaviour by a man to a woman in our society, and it cannot be said that the modesty of the complainant woman had not been outraged thereby, particularly when she is a pardah observing woman.

9. The allegation of the applicant in his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. that he has enmity with P. W. Rashid and that the latter exchanged harsh words and threatened to see him has also not been proved on the record as also will be discussed while dealing with the defence evidence as well. His statement on the contrary leaves a clear and definite impression on the Court's mind that he was hit with the bottle by a woman, according to him, who was obviously the complainant woman in this case and he had suffered an injury. This admission on his part goes to further corroborate the allegations of the complainant against the applicant in this case.

10. The defence witness of the applicant namely, Naimuddin has deposed, inter alia, that the applicant and the complainant woman are known to him. After two or three months of the challenging of the case P. W, Rashid had come to him and told him that if he would get him (Rashid) money, the latter would get the case patched up. He then stated that the complainant woman used to reside at Latifabad and visited Rashid at Phuleli but he has not disclosed the source of his knowledge about this allegation of his as it is difficult to understand how he knows that the com plainant woman visited P. W. Rashid while the complainant is a pardah observing woman. This defence witness then further stated that the husband of the complainant sells vegetables on footpath near Phuleli. He also stated that P. W. Rashid had demanded money before the statement of Sughra was recorded by the Court but this question was never put to P. W. Rashid and hence it is clear this witness is telling a lie about it. The defence witness continued and said that Mohalla people had objected to the visit of Sughra to Rashid and the applicant in this petition was one of the objectors. In my opinion this last mentioned statement he has made to oblige the applicant in this case as it appears to me due to the influence of the brother of the applicant i.e. Nizamuddin, who is Chairman B. D. of the Mohalla of this D. W. who is also the Nek Mard of the Mohalla. The defence evidence of this witness, therefore, does not further support the case of the applicant at all. Thus, the result is that the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the applicant due to reasons and discussion made above. In this view of the matter I find that the judgments of the two Courts which have also given identical con-current finding regarding the guilt of the applicant are quite valid and proper in law. They are not perverse or foolish so that they should be interfered within this revision petition.

11. This brings us to the question whether the sentence passed on the applicant should be enhanced or not? The learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the fact that the complainant woman had caused an injury with her bottle on the face of the applicant therefore, this was an extra punishment to him as such the sentence already awarded to him need not be enhanced. Of course, I need hardly say that this is no reason at all ~' for not enhancing the sentence. But, however, looking to the circumstance of this case and the fact that the applicant is a young person of 27 years age I consider that the sentence need not be enhanced and a request for the same has also not been made by the State Counsel. I would, therefore, discharge the notice for enhancement of the sentence issued to the applicant.

12. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed and the conviction and the sentence of the applicant are maintained. He is on bail and warrants, shall be issued against him remanding him to jail custody to serve out the remaining period of his sentence. Petition dismissed.