MUHAMMAD NASEER vs The STATE and another

ORDER

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Muhammad Irshad, the complainant of case FIR No,52/16, dated 20.2.2016, under sections 365, 496-A and 376, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Mananwala, district Sheikhupura, has alleged that his siter Mst. Safia Bibi married Ghaus Muhammad and delivered four sons, who all were minors; Ghaus Muhammad's first wife Mst. Aisha Bibi had died about twenty

(20) years back, but not before she gave birth to four sons and four daughters; Muhammad Naseer (petitioner), who is real son of Ghuas Muhammad from his first wife, threatened Mst. Safia Bibi, with intent to grab residential house and other immovable property of his father, that he would murder her and her children, if she would not leave his father's house; she informed him (complainant) about this incident, whereafters she disappeared from her husband's house and her particulars remained unknown for about 1-1/4 years; he searched for his missing sister everywhere, but in vain; during this search-campaign, he learnt it from Muhammad Anwar and Irfan about eight days before that Muhammad Naseer (petitioner) had disclosed it to them that he had abducted Mst.

Safia Bibi and confined her at some unknown place with the intent to murder her or not to ever release her, if immovable property of his father was not alienated to him, beside his brothers and sisters.

Mst. Safia Bibi, all of a sudden, appeared on the scene to make statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 8.3.2016, whereby she contended that she had been abducted and subjected to sexual intercourse by Muhammad Naseer (petitioner) due to which she got pregnant and gave birth to a female baby, which was four months of age and lived with her. She rendered an assimilating statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., the same day, but showed herself to be the wife of Muhammad Naseer (petitioner).

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Muhammad Naseer (petitioner) has committed an abhorrent and immoral offence of the worst degree, as he allegedly abducted legally wedded wife of his father, who was his step-mother and raped her for years till she turned gravid and delivered a 'bastard' child, who was four months old, when she tendered statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 8.3.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a Nikahnama, by contending that Ghaus Muhammad had verbally divorced Mst.Safia Bibi in year 2014, whereafter Muhammad Naseer (petitioner) solemnized Nikah with her on 1.6.2014. Learned counsel referred to the Nikahnama time and again in his arguments by contending that the accused-petitioner and Mst.Salia Bibi consummated their marriage only after registration of their Nikahnama with the respective union council. This particular contention of the learned counsel militates against the teachings of the Holy Qur'an, refer Verse No 23. Surah-IV (An-Nisa). Chapter-4. whereby it has been ordained by the Almighty. "Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters and your sisters and your father's sisters, and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters and your sister's daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mother-in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection (born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in - but if ye have' not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you (to marry their daughters) - and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins. And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! Allah is every Forgiving, Merciful." The word 'mother' applies to one's stepmother as well, as to one's real mother, hence, the prohibition extends to, both. These injunctions also includes prohibition of the grand-mother, both paternal and maternal.

3. The stance of the petitioner during the course of investigation, that he had married his step- mother, Mst. Safia Bibi of her free will and accord, only after she had been divorced by his father, was sufficient to hold, though tentatively, that he had committed the offence alleged, which fell within the mischief of prohibition of section 497(1), Cr .P.0 . Therefore. I am not inclined to accept this application, which is accordingly dismissed.