LAL MUHAMMAD vs YAR MUHAMMAD and 9 others

' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI (MEMBER).---This petition under Article 203-F of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been directed against the judgment, dated 16-12-2002 whereby the Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against acquittal of the respondents from the . Charge under sections 11/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, vide judgment, dated 30-9-1997 in a case registered against them for abduction of Mst. Nargus Bibi daughter of petitioner.

2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief as contained in the report lodged by Lal Muhammad, petitioner, at Police Station, Saraib,-Quetta on 26-6-1996 are that Muhammad Jan, his nephew, was foster brother of Mst. Nargus, his daughter. Yar Muhammad, father of Muhammad Jan, proposed marriage of Mst. Nargus with Muhammad Jan but they being in prohibited decree, their marriage inter se was not possible, therefore, the proposal was not accepted. Muhammad Jan being annoyed, left the house and subsequently Mst. Nargus also disappeared from the house and later it transpired that Mst. Nargus was abducted by Ahmed Khan, Nawab Khan, Muhammad Ayub alias Kittu and Muhammad Jan at the instance of Yar Muhammad. The petitioner has been making efforts for amicable settlement and return of abductee. But neither the accused were cooperative nor Mst. Nargus and Muhammad Jan were traceable, therefore, he having no other option, lodged the report with the police. Lal Muhammad complainant (P.W.2) deposed in support of the prosecution story of disappearance of Muhammad Jan and abduction of Mst. Nargus Bibi. Mst. Faiz Bibi (P.W.4) mother of Mst. Nargus deposed that on the rejection of the proposal of accused party of marriage of Mst. Nargus with Muhammad Jan, they forcibly entered into her house and abducted Mst. Nargus on gun point. Mst. Zarina (P.W.5) a cousin of complainant, who claimed her presence in the house of Mst Faiz Bibi with Mst. Shakir Jan at the time of alleged abduction of Mst.

Nargus, corroborated the statement of Mst. Faiz Bibi. It is in the statements of the above witnesses that petitioner approached Yar Muhammad in the night of occurrence for return of the Mst. Nargus and he demanded Rs,4,000 but subsequently, the accused party resiled from the above commitment and demanded marriage of Mst. Nargus with Muhammad Jan.

3. The accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge and pleaded innocence but neither they made their statements under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge having come to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted them vide judgment, dated 30-9-1997 and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Federal Shariat Court against the acquittal of respondents remained unsuccessful.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that disappearance of Mst. Nargus was not voluntary and there was ample evidence on record to show that she was abducted by the respondents therefore, the findings of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court and upheld by the Federal Shariat Court in appeal, were in complete disregard to the evidence available on record.

Learned counsel added that Mst. Faiz Bibi, mother of Mst. Nargus, has categorically stated that Mst.

Nargus was forcibly taken away by the accused respondents with them in presence of Mst. Zarina from her house at about 8-30 p.m. And the major role in the abduction of girl, was played by Muhammad Ayub and that there was no reason to disbelieve Mst. Faiz Bibi and Mst. Zarina, the most natural witnesses.

5. It is an admitted fact that Muhammad Jan and Mst. Nargus disappeared from the house one after the other and remained untraced. It is also admitted that parties being closely related with each other, have been making efforts to settle the mater amicably but remained unsuccessful and ultimately, the complainant lodge report of abduction of Mst. Nargus. The prosecution has introduced a different story of abduction of Mst. Nargus at the trial to that of the version given in the F.I.R. Which was lodged with a considerable delay but still according to the version of F.I.R.

Apparently, it was a case of wilful disappearance and the subsequent story of abduction of Mst.

Nargus introduced at the trial certainly would not appeal to mind. The trial Court and also the appellate Court having made detailed scrutiny of the facts and appraised the evidence, have concurrently held that the respondents were not guilty of the charge and this Court would not interfere in the acquittal unless it A is shown that findings of acquittal arrived at were perverse or were in complete disregard to the evidence on record. We having perused the record, have not been able to find out any defect in the concurrent finding of two Courts of not giving due weight to the evidence or discarding the evidence or failed to appraise the eye-witnesses account in prover manner or omitted to give due consideration to the absence of reason for false implication causing failure of justice. Consequently, finding of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court and maintained by the Federal Shariat Court, would not call for interference of this Court.

5. For the reasons given above, this petition being without any substance is dismissed. Leave is refused.