1994 P Cr (PLP)

NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.

Complainant Chiragh Din recorded F.I.R. No.131/92 in Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd on 29-4-1992 wherein he charged appellant Pceran Ditta for the abduction of his minor daughter Mst. Ishrat Bibi aged about 12/13 years 5/6 months ago on the pretext that his wife was ailing and the abductee was needed for serving her.

2. Mst. Ishrat Bibi was recovered on 2-5-1992 from the company of the appellant and she was medically examined on the next day by P.W.7 Lady Dr. Nasreen Aslam, according to which the abductee had been subjected to sexual intercourse.

3. Mst. Ishrat Bibi, after her recovery, also charged co-accused Bashir Ahmad alongwith the appellant for her abduction. After investigation both the accused Bashir Ahmad and appellant Peeran Ditta were sent up for trial before Additional Sessions Judge-II, Okara who charged both of them under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also charged appellant Peeran Ditta under section 10(3) of the Hudood Ordinance. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the trial 9 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the State whereas both the accused made depositions under section. 342, Cr.P.C. but none of them made any deposition on oath. However, accused Bashir produced one defence witness.

5. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Bashir but convicted the appellant for both the offences under sections 11 and 10(3) of the Hudood Ordinance. For the offence under section 11 of the Hudood Ordinance the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to suffer 30 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence under section 10(3) of, the Hudood Ordinance the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to suffer 30 stripes. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by the appeal in hand sent from jail.

6. We have gone through the entire record of the case very carefully and have also heard learned counsel for the parties at length. .

7. There is no denying the fact that the abductee Mst. Ishrat Bibi was minor girl of about 12/13 years during the days of occurrence. Appellant Peeran Ditta was on visiting terms with the complainant, family. It is also a fact that the abductee was recovered when she was in the custody of the appellant. Her medical examination carried out on the next day proved that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse and prior to that she was a virgin girl. The medical examination would also reveal that the sex characters of the abductee had not fully developed and they were in the stage of formation. Lady Doctor also gave the opinion that although the abductee was subjected to sexual intercourse many times by the appellant still her vagina admitted only one finger. The medical evidence will clearly prove that the unfortunate girl had been subjected to sexual intercourse forcibly and it was a case of rape. She directly charged the appellant for the said offences. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the complainant party had any animus or motive against the appellant to charge him falsely. 8.???????? The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was a delay of 5/6 months in lodging the F.I.R. and it was fatal to the prosecution. We have considered this aspect of the matter very anxiously. There is an explanation furnished in the F.I.R. that the complainant, father of the abductee had been approaching the accused party through "Punchayat" for her return and when he lost all hope of the return of her daughter then he reported the??? matter in the police station. In our opinion this was a reasonable explanation for delay in the report of the matter in the police station.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there were contradiction in the prosecution story inasmuch as the witnesses who saw the abductee being taken by the appellant had stated that they were going towards one direction whereas the girl had pointed out in her testimony a different direction. He also contended that according to the testimony of the girl herself, the appellant, his family and the abductee used to five in one and the same room during all the period she remained with the appellant at different places and it was impossible for the appellant to subject her to rape. We have also considered these aspects very carefully but we do not agree with the learned counsel on both the points. There are of course bound to occur some minor variations and contradictions in different versions of the incident which is witnessed by more than one person and then narrated by each of them. However, the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are of a very trivial nature and did not adversely affect the prosecution story in any way. It is a fact that Mst. Ishrat Bibi was abducted by the appellant on the pretext of taking her to his house for the service of the ailing wife and then she was taken to different places and during all this period she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. It is also immaterial that the entire family lived in one room because the possibility of cohabition was still there during the night.

10. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances we have come to the conclusion that both the offences were proved against the appellant beyond even any shadow of doubt. He acted in such cruel manner by raping a minor girl who had not yet attained full puberty. He was already a married man and with a family and was of the age of her father. He deserved no leniency. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has appropriately convicted and sentenced the appellant. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently and the appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./904/FSC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed. ???????