1996 P Cr (PLP)

6. Mst. Sumaira Bashir P.W. in her cross-examination stated that she had not seen the accused prior to the occurrence. Faiz Rasool and the other accused were inter se friends and they used to visit her village. The names of the accused except Faiz Rasool were not known to her prior to the occurrence. She volunteered that during her stay with them she came to know their names as they used to talk with each other by their names. She further stated that all the accused remained at the second Dera till departure to Pindi Bhattian. She further deposed that she cannot say as to how much time was consumed in reaching the unknown place from the place of occurrence. She could not tell the distance between the said places to which accused had taken her. She added that they however, reached there after sunset. She deposed that she could not see anything on her way as a Chaddar was wrapped on her face by the accused; that she had been weeping during that time but she did not raise hue and cry because of the threats of the accused. She stated that there was no village Abadi around the said Dera. She explained that they remained in the said Dera for about half an hour. No body arrived there except the accused and their associates and they were talking with each other about some danger to them and she was shifted to some other place by Faiz Rasool and Malik and 2/3 other persons. It was also a Dera where they reached after about one hour of their departure from the previous Dera. She further stated that from the first Dera to the second Dera she was made to go on foot. No person met her on the way and there was none in the fields around the said path at that time, two three persons including Faiz Rasool were walking ahead of her whereas the other accused were walking on her back side. She stated that from the said Dera she was carried to Pindi Bhattian on the motor-cycle and that all the accused remained at the second Dera till they departed and it was still dark when they reached Pindi Bhattian. She added that she was carried on Katcha paths throughout and she did not come across any police post/Naka and that as she was wrapped in a Chaddar she could not notice as to from how many streets she was carried to the house of a friend of the accused which had one room and one Veranda. She stated that she was not allowed to go about in the said house and she cannot say if the said house was surrounded by some houses or not. Malik accused had gone to take bath at about sunset. She reiterated that Nawaz, Jawad, Malik, Faiz Rasool and Shabbir alias Bhola stopped their tonga.

7. Mst. Sumaira Bashir in cross-examination was confronted with her statement Exh.D.B. as names of the accused were not found recorded therein. A reference to her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. will be appropriate at this stage as in the earlier part of this statement names of the accused have not been mentioned as regards haulting of the tonga but in the later part it stands recorded that the accused, namely, Malko, Faiz Rasool, Shabbir alias Bhola, Jawad alias Jawadi and two others whose names were not known had after forcibly abducting her made her to ride the motor-cycle and Malko drove the motor-cycle while Faiz Rasool sat behind her and the other accused and their associates also came after them on the motor-cycle. She denied the suggestion that Faiz Rasool and she wanted to marry against the wishes of their parents and that no such occurrence had taken place.

8. Rashid Ahmad (P.W.4) deposed that he and his brother Naseer P.W. were grazing their cattle, they were attracted by the shrieks of girls and they saw tonga on the bridge, of drainage; five persons had intercepted the tonga they went there and saw Faiz Rasool, Malik, Shabbir, Jawad and Nawaz accused were there. Faiz Rasool and Malik were pulling down Mst. Sumaira from the tonga. They tried to intervene so as to refrain them from doing such excess. Nawaz, Jawad and Shabbir accused aimed at them their fire-arms and threatened them of dire consequences. They, therefore, did not go forward and Faiz Rasool and Malik carried away Mst. Sumaira Bibi on their motor-cycle. Rashid Ahmad P.W. as admitted by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.1) is son-in -law of Ghulam Nabi, a first cousin of Bashir Ahmad (P.W.1). He stated that he had mentioned in his police statement that Faiz Rasool and Malik accused were pulling down Mst. Sumaira from the tonga. He was confronted with Exh.D.D. wherein it is mentioned that the accused were pulling down Mst. Sumaira Bashir from the tonga forcibly. So the names of both the accused were not specified. He further stated that he had mentioned in his police statement that Shabbir, Nawaz and Jawad accused came there with fire-arm weapons when they intervened; confronted with Exh.D.D. where the names of these accused were not found recorded. He also claimed that he had mentioned in the police statement that Faiz Rasool and Malik accused carried Mst. Sumaira on motor-cycle but in the said statement Exh.D.D. name of Malik accused was not mentioned specifically as what is recorded is that Faiz Rasool etc. did the said act. He added that at that time no other person was grazing cattle in the nearby area, that they had sticks with them and they did not step forward towards the accused to rescue Mst. Sumaira as the accused were armed with fire-arms. He added that the accused could be identified as they had not fully muffled their faces. He denied the suggestion that he before the Additional S.P., had stated that Shabbir, Nawaz and Jawad accused had muffled their faces. He refuted the suggestion as incorrect that he had not seen the occurrence and deposed falsely.

9. Abdul Hafeez, Constable (P.W.5) delivered the parcel handed over to him by Muhammad Ashraf, Muharrir to the office of the Chemical Examiner. He also attested the recovery memos. of the recovery of revolver and bullets from Malik accused and the recovery of gun and cartridges from Muhammad Nawaz accused. He in cross-examination stated that the family members of Muhammad Malik and Nawaz accused reside in their houses and that Investigating Officer did not summon Lambardar and any respectable person of the village at the time of recovery. Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.6) Muharrir registered the F.I.R. on receipt of the complaint Exh.P.A. Saif U11ah, Investigating Officer, gave him packet containing swabs which he kept in the Malkhana and then delivered it to Abdul Hafeez, Constable P.W. for delivery to the office of Chemical Examiner. Saif Ullah, A.S.-I. (P.W.7) is the Investigating Officer. He deposed about the recovery of Mst. Sumaira from the accused from Faisalabad Road, Sangla Hill and the arrest of the accused on various dates as noted above and recovery of the fire-arms Malik and Nawaz. He deposed in cross-examination that Bashir Ahmad complainant is a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department. Altaf Hussain accused remained posted as Naib Muharrir in Police Station Saddar, Sangla Hill about one month prior .to the occurrence and that he and Zafarullah, A.S.-I. had found Altaf accused in an objectionable condition in one room of the police station with a woman of ill -repute and they had reported the matter and Altaf was then suspended by D.S.P., Sangla Hill and latter was sent to District Police Lines, Sheikhupura. He added that an inquiry in the said matter was pending before the D.S.P., C.I.A., Sheikhupura. He stated that he was not aware if Fazal Karim, Inspector and Bashir Ahmad complainant are friends. He also stated that some persons had arrived there on seeing them at the time of recovery of weapons and he had asked them to become witnesses but they refused but this fact was not recorded in the case diary. He stated that he cannot say if any person appeared before Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Additional S.P., in favour of Altaf accused and that some relatives of Altaf accused had also offered an oath of his innocence. He admitted that it is on record that Altaf and Mehmood accused were declared innocent by the A.S.P. and that it is on the file that a discharge report qua Altaf Hussain and Mehmood accused was also completed by Fazal Elahi, S.-I. He, however, denied the suggestion as incorrect that all the accused in their pleas after arrest claimed to be innocent. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that he did not investigate the case properly. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that Mst. Sumaira Bashir eloped with Faiz Rasool accused/P.O. as she wanted to marry him against the wishes of her elders and that the accused present in Court were falsely implicated in the case due to the influence of the complainant.

10. Dr. Muhammad Naseer Ahmad (P.W.8) examined Altaf Hussain accused for the purpose of sexual maturity and on examination he did not find him unfit for the sexual intercourse. Abbad Hussain, Constable (P.W.9) deposed about the non-availability of Faiz Rasool accused and his failure to execute the warrants of arrest and about the process issued before declaring him a proclaimed offender. Dr. Munazza Zaheer (P.W.10) examined Mst. Sumaira P.W. the alleged victim on 1st of December, 1993. She was statedly aged about 16/17 years. After her examination the observations recorded read as under:-- "There was no mark of violence on her body. P/V examination: there was a slightly healed tear at 5'O clock position. There was also another slightly healed tear at 7'O Clock position. The hymen was absent. Vagina admitted two fingers easily and painlessly. Uterus was of normal size. Os was closed. Fornices were clear. Two vaginal swabs (slightly blood-stained) were taken and sent to Chemical Examiner, Lahore, for semen grouping and semen analysis." The lady doctor after seeing the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.J. according to which the swabs were found stained with semen, opined that Mst. Sumaira Bashir was subjected to sexual intercourse. The doctor in cross examination stated that tears generally heal within 1-2 weeks. Volunteered that it depends upon the physique and health of the patient. The process of healing of tear starts after 2-3 days. The patient might have sustained the tears about 3-4 days approximately. She added that the hymen becomes absent when the victim is subjected to repeated sexual intercourse or after giving birth to a child. She inter alia added that she cannot say if Mst. Sumaira was habitual to sexual intercourse or not.

11. The accused in statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and pleaded that their involvement was on account of suspicion and party faction in the area. Muhammad Nawaz appellant deposed that there was litigation between him and the complainant regarding canal water. Altaf Hussain accused stated that he was posted as Naib-Muharrir at Police Station Saddar, Sangla Hill about one month prior to the registration of this case. He had a dispute with his S.H.O. Fazal Karim, S.-I. who got him transferred to District Police Lines, Sheikhupura, and threatened him to get involved in some case of heinous nature. Bashir Ahmad complainant is a Sub Inspector Police. He had been on -visiting terms with Fazal Karim, S.H.O. and he was implicated at the instance of said Fazal Karim, S.H.O. as he had advised Bashir Ahmad complainant and Mst. Sumaira Bashir to do so. The accused neither produced any defence -nor made statement on oath in disproof of the charges against them.

12. Mr. Muhammad Taqi Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for Shabbir Ahmad accused/appellant argued that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola was falsely implicated. He had nothing to do with the other accused and that the prosecution has not established any connection of Shabbir alias Bhola either with Faiz Rasool the main accused or the other co-accused, that the accused are residents of different places and were not known to Mst. Sumaira. He added that Bashir Ahmad complainant (P.W.1) did not nominate Shabbir as accused in his statement before the Court made on oath. Nazir Ahmad (P.W.2) likewise cannot be believed as firstly, he is an interested witness as admittedly he was plying the tonga which he had taken from the complainant on hire-purchase basis, secondly, Nazir Ahmad P.W. did not mention that Shabbir Ahmad appellant had any fire-arm with him, thirdly no overt act was attributed by him to Shabbir Ahmad appellant. According to this witness Shabbir Ahmad appellant was just present alongwith the other accused, fourthly according to Nazir Ahmad P.W. the accused had muffled their faces and if so the identification parade should have been held to establish the identity of the accused specially when the accused were not known to Mst. Sumaira Bashir P.W.3 the alleged victim. It was also argued that Mst. Sumaira P.W. did not attribute any overt act to Shabbir Ahmad appellant except that he alongwith the other accused had stopped the tonga and that even for the act of stopping the tonga Mst. Sumaira P.W. in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. failed to specify the accused who had stopped the tonga. It was pointed out that no weapon was recovered from Shabbir Ahmad accused and in the circumstances when the identity of the accused was not established and when no overt act had been attributed to Shabbir Ahmad appellant prosecution had failed to establish the involvement of Shabbir Ahmad appellant in the alleged occurrence and as such following the principle laid down in Jan Muhammad v. The Crown 1969 SCMR 344, Hassan v. The State 1969 SCMR 454, Muhammad Ashiq v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 368, Muhammad Binyamin alias Bunoo v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1217, the conviction of Shabbir Ahmad appellant cannot be sustained and he is entitled to be acquitted extending him benefit of doubt.

13. Khan Younus Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for Muhammad Nawaz appellant adopted the arguments of Muhammad Taqi Khan, Advocate for Shabbir Ahmad appellant and added that the statement of Bashir Ahmad P.W. is of no avail to the prosecution as he has not even reiterated the version contained in the F.I.R. which itself having been lodged by a person other than the eye witness, is not to be taken as a substantive piece of evidence. Reference was made to Sohni v. Bahaduri and 5 others v. The State PLD 1965 SC 111 and Sajawal Khan v. The State PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K)

130. He pointed out that in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Exh.D.B. of Mst. Sumaira P.W. Muhammad Nawaz accused/appellant was not nominated specifically at various stages of the alleged incident and that in these circumstances the prosecution had failed to establish the offence under section 11 of the Ordinance against Muhammad Nawaz accused/appellant. He argued that the conviction of Muhammad Nawaz appellant is, therefore, not sustainable in law.

14. Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahllah, Advocate, learned counsel for Altaf Hussain accused/appellant argued that the conviction of Altaf Hussain appellant on the charge of abduction under section 11 of the Ordinance is totally unwarranted as according to the prosecution version itself he appeared on the scene at a Dera where Mst. Sumaira P.W. had been brought by the other accused and the allegation is that he committed Ziaditi only once with Mst. Sumaira Bashir P.W. The other act attributed to Altaf Hussain appellant is that he conveyed a message of Maqbool Ahmad the father to Faiz Rasool accused, that he should solemnize Nikah with Mst. Sumaira P.W. and thereafter the father will deal with the father of the victim. It was submitted that even if this version is accepted neither any role was attributed nor any part was played by Altaf Hussain in the alleged abduction of Mst. Sumaira P.W. As regards allegation of Zina it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case establishing of the identity through identification parade of the accused was necessary as they were admittedly not known to Mst. Sumaira P.W. Learned counsel added that Altaf Hussain appellant remained on the scene for a short while and as such the explanation offered that the accused were calling each other with their names and Mst. Sumaira P.W. came to know of their names would not apply to Altaf Hussain appellant. Learned counsel further argued that the offence of Zina cannot be said to have been established by use of the word "Ziadati" as penetration is to be alleged and proved. He further urged that Altaf Hussain appellant was involved at the behest of Fazal Karim, S.H.O., Sangla Hill as he and the other Police Officers at Sangla Hill Police Station were annoyed with Altaf Hussain appellant. They had admittedly got him transferred from the police station only one month prior to the alleged occurrence. It was also pointed out that according to the version of the prosecution Faiz Rasool wanted to marry Mst. Sumaira Bashir P.W. and if so Faiz Rasool appellant would not allow even his friends to commit "Ziadati" with Mst. Sumaira P.W. what to say of permitting a stranger like Altaf Hussain appellant to disgrace her. It was argued that no connection, what to say of any friendship, between Altaf Hussain and Faiz Rasool was even remotely suggested or brought on record by the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that it was in these circumstances that the Additional S.P. after holding the investigation had come to the finding that Altaf Hussain had been falsely involved in the case and a discharge report was completed by Fazal Karim, S.H.O. and this was so done as Altaf Hussain and Mehmood, Constables were declared innocent by the Additional Superintendent of Police.

15. In reply learned counsel for the State argued that the version of Mst Sumaira Bashir, P.W., the victim stands fully corroborated by the testimony of Nazir Ahmad, P.W.2 and Rashid Ahmad, P.W.4. Their testimony receives further corroboration from the medical evidence on record and as such the conviction of the appellants is well-based. It was further argued that minor omissions in the statements of Mst. Sumaira Bashir, Nazir Ahmad and Rashid Ahmad pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants do not in any way belie the prosecution version as the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is convincing, confidence inspiring and worthy of reliance. He, therefore, maintained that the conviction and sentences of the appellants, merit no interference,

16. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record minutely. Bashir Ahmad, P. W.1, complainant in the case has not in his statement before the Court reiterated on oath, contents of the F. I. R. which were admittedly not based on the personal information of the complainant. The F.I.R. as such cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence. The prosecution case depends mostly on the testimony of Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W.3, Nazir Ahmad, P.W.2 and Rashid Ahmad, P.W.4. In support of the ocular account M.L.R. Exh.P.H. and Chemical Examiner's report Exh.P.J. which is positive were also relied upon by the prosecution.

17. The prosecution in its evidence has not shown as to how Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola, Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz, appellants were connected with Faiz Rasool alias Billa the main accused. There is no allegation that the appellants were the friends of Faiz Rasool alias Billa the main accused. This factor by itself is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses if their involvement in the occurrence otherwise stands established through reliable evidence. This factor will assume importance only if some doubt emerges as regards their participation in the incident.

18. Firstly, the case of the prosecution as against Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz, appellants may be examined and scrutinized. The role attributed by the three prosecution witnesses is that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz alongwith other co-accused stopped the tonga and Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W., was alighted from the tonga by Faiz Rasool and Malik accused (proclaimed offenders) and they took her away on a motor-cycle. Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W. further stated that accused had taken her to a Dera and that they were on watch there while she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by Faiz Rasool and Altaf Hussain. These are the roles attributed to Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz appellants. A close scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses would show that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz appellants were amongst the companions of Faiz Rasool the principal accused who had stopped the conga. Nazir Ahmad who plies the tonga received it from the father of the alleged abductee and as such is not an altogether independent witness. He stated that these mo appellants were amongst the accused who had stopped his tonga. He did not mention of the arms if any in the hands of the accused. I have noted that Nazir Ahmad had stated that they threatened Rashid Ahmad P.W. and Naseer Ahmad (given up P.W.) of dire consequences if they intervened but that would not mean that these two appellants were carrying arms with themselves. Mst. Sumaira Bashir P.W. also in her statement before the Court stated that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola, Muhammad Nawaz, Jawad, Malik and Faiz Rasool had stopped the tonga but in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Exh.D.D. she had not given the names of the accused who had stopped the tonga as in this statement she stated that 4/5 persons came out of the bushes and Malik and Faiz Rasool asked who was the sister of Bodi, and directed her to get down from the tongs but she refused. She in the said statement at the later stage gave names of the accused as Maliku, Faiz Rasool alias Billa, Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola, Jawad and two others whose names were not known to her. So in this statement Mst. Sumaira Bashir did not nominate Muhammad Nawaz accused/appellant. It is also pertinent to note that Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W. stated that Maliku and Faiz Rasool alias Billa took her to an unknown place where two persons were already present and one of them was Altaf Hussain and the others' name was not known to her. She also added that Altaf Hussain and Faiz Rasool alias Bilta had committed "Ziadati" with her. She further deposed that Muhammad Nawaz, Jawad and Mahmood had been watching. It may be noted that at this stage Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola was not mentioned as one of the accused who were allegedly watching. Mst. Sumaira Bashir while describing the occurrence from this stage onwards does not give the names of the accused other than that Faiz Rasool, Maliku, Altaf and Mehmood. She mentioned in general that the accused had arrived at the Dera where she was taken from Humrajpura drainage and those accused also left when she was taken to Pindi Bhattian. She does not mention the presence of the appellants at the time when she was taken into the custody by the police.

19. Rashid Ahmad P.W.4, is son-in-law of Nabi Ahmad who is the first cousin of Bashir Ahmad, P.W.1, the complainant father of the alleged abductee. Rashid Ahmad mentioned names of Nawaz and Shabbir appellants as amongst the accused who were present at the drainage bridge. He added that Faiz Rasool and Maliku were pulling down Mst. Sumaira Bashir from the tonga. He and Naseer tried to intervene but Nawaz, Jawad and Shabbir Ahmad accused aiming fire-arms on them threatened them to kill them. He was confronted with the statement Exh.D.D. where names of the accused who had aimed the fire-arm when they intervened were not given. He had in that statement, Exh.D.D. not given the description of the fire-arms which the appellants or the other co accused were having with them.

20. Another important feature emerging from the statement of Nazir Ahmad, P.W.2 and Rashid Ahmad, P.W.4 may be noted. Nazir Ahmad in his cross-examination stated that accused had muffled their faces. Rashid Ahmad, P.W. also stated that the accused could be identified as they had not muffled their faces fully. These facts coupled with the admission of Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W. that she had not seen as well as known the accused/appellants before the occurrence and that she came to know of their names during the period that she had remained with the accused as they called their names while talking with each other point out of the necessity to establish beyond doubt, identity of Shabbir and Nawaz accused. It is pertinent to recall that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola was not named as one of the accused who had been watching. So if Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola was not there, Mst. Sumaira Bashir did not have the occasion to know his name.

21. The evidence of the three aforementioned prosecution witnesses at best shows the presence of Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz at the time when Faiz Rasool alias Billa had Maliko alighted Mst. Sumaira Bashir from the tonga and was taken away on the motor-cycle. Rashid Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad. P.Ws. definitely made improvements in their statements before the Court, by attributing role of aiming of the arms at the persons attracted to the spot to Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz accused. If this improvement made at the trial stage is discarded, then what emerges from the evidence is that Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz accused were present at the time when Faiz Rasool and Maliku and alighted Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P. W. from. tonga and had taken her away on a motor-cycle. In this situation, the connection of the two accused if any as a friend or relative of the principal accused becomes relevant as otherwise mere presence of some one at the scene of crime would not furnish sufficient basis for inferring involvement in the crime. In the circumstances noted above it would not be safe to hold that the offence of abduction with the necessary intent punishable under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 beyond reasonable shadow of doubt stands established on record.

22. As regards their conviction for the offence under section 109, P.P.C. read with section 10(3) of the Ordinance, it has been noted above that the allegation at best of Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W., the only witness in this respect is that Muhammad Nawaz alongwith other co-accused was watching, This again was an improvement made at the trial stage and this statement alone so made in my view cannot be made basis for conviction under section 109, P.P.C. read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola was not nominated by Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W. in this respect at all. The conviction and sentences of Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz accused/appellants under section 109, P.P.C. read with section 10(3) of the Ordinance, 1979 are also not sustainable.

23. As regards Altaf Hussain, accused/appellant the allegation is of Zina- bil-Jabr made by Mst. Sumaira Bashir, P.W. after her abduction by the co accused. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not previously known to her and so she could not have known his name; and that Altaf, appears to have been involved falsely at the' behest of the Investigating Officer who was a friend and colleague of the complainant, who is a Police Sub Inspector. This plea has no merit. It is unbelievable that a father will disgrace his young unmarried and teen-aged daughter by making false allegation of Zina in order to please his colleague. Assuming that Bashir Ahmad, P.W.1 was so minded as to falsely involve Altaf Hussain appellant at the behest of a Police Officer his colleague, he would have nominated him in the F.I.R. and attributed some role in the abduction of the girl. As against it what one finds is that Altaf Hussain was named by 1VIst. Sumaira Bashir in her statement before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. as the culprit who had committed "Ziadti" with her alongwith Faiz Rasool alias Billa the principal accused. The second role attributed to him is that he had conveyed the message of Maqbool Ahmad the father of Faiz Rasool that he should manage Nikah with the girl and the rest will be looked after and taken care of by him. So it was not the complainant who involved Altaf Hussain appellant in the case. It was Sumaira Bashir the victim who nominated Altaf Hussain as one of the culprits in the statement made before the Magistrate soon after her recovery. The plea, that as Faiz Rasool alias Billa wanted to marry Mst. Sumaira Bashir, it is not believable that he would allow Altaf Hussain accused/appellant to rape her, cannot also be accepted. A person who desires to marry honourably would not abduct his beloved forcibly while she is returning home with her sisters. It appears that on refusal of the father to marry Mst. Sumaira Bashir with Faiz Rasool, the latter felt annoyed and to avenge the same resorted to abduction and as such' could go to any extent to disgrace the girl.

24. As regards identification there cannot be any doubt as the victim was . subjected to sexual intercourse by him and the name would have been known as the accused conversed with each other by calling their respective names. This was so stated by Mst. Sumaira Bashir and there is nothing unusual in it. The other plea that use of the word "Ziadti" by the victim is not sufficient to establish penetration has also not impressed me. Mst, Sumaira Bashir described Ziadti sufficiently when she stated that every one knows what "Ziadti" is, The further elaboration is provided to by the medical evidence Exh.P.H. and Chemical Examiner's report, Exh.P.J. For all these reasons I am satisfied that I the prosecution did succeed in establishing the offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 beyond reasonable shadow of doubt as against Altaf Hussain appellant. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as such calls for no interference. He has not been assigned any role in the abduction of Mst. Sumaira Bashir and of such his conviction under section 11 of the Ordinance is not legal. The conviction and sentences of Altaf Hussain appellant under section 11 of the Ordinance, 1979 are set aside but his conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Ordinance are maintained. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall remain in tact. His appeal fails and is dismissed to that extent. The appeals of Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola and Muhammad Nawaz, appellants are accepted, their convictions and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges on both counts. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./1064/FSC Order accordingly.