MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Mahboob Hussain, an employee of Multan Development Authority propounded his theory that her daughter Mst. Shazia Batool aged 15/1-2 years was studying in the 8th class in Moon Light Girls High School, New Multan. On 11-9-1999, her teacher Abida Bano and one Mst. Aisha Jamal paid a visit to his house. They took away Mst. Shazia along with them on the pretext of some piece of work. Mst. Shazia Batool did not come back till evening. He started searching her and during this course visited the abovesaid ladies, but they were not available at their respective abodes. - Two persons, namely Sajjad Hussain and Tariq Mahmood met him and told him that Mst. Shazia Batool was seen by them in the company of Abida Bano, Mst. Aisha Jamal and Muhammad Yousaf-petitioner while boarding a bus bound for Budla Sant. Having learnt this, he took Sajjad Hussain and Tariq Mahmood to the house of Muhammad Yousaf petitioner and inquired from him about his daughter. After much reluctance, Muhammad Yousaf-petitioner told them that it was a hard fact that he through Abida Bano and Mst. Aisha Jamal had abducted Mst. Shazia Batool. He not only begged pardon from them, but also made a promise that Mst. Shazia Batool will be delivered back after few days. He did not keep up his promise and used to put off Mahboob Hussain on one pretext or the other and finally gave a flat refusal to him. Allegations of abduction and Zina were also levelled against the accused.
2. Mahboob Hussain feeling aggrieved of the criminal conduct of the petitioner and others established contact with Javed Ashraf, S.I., Police Station, New Multan on 30-11-1999 and set the State functionaries into motion by getting crime report No.533 of 1999, dated 30-11-1999 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered against the accused with Police Station, New Multan on the basis of afore mentioned facts.
3. On being arrested on these allegations, Muhammad Yousaf-petitioner along with his other co-accused preferred separate applications for grant of post-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, who by virtue of his order dated 13-5-2000 declined relief to them on the basis of variety of reasons embodied in the order itself. By filing this application, the petitioner seeks same relief from this Court.
4. During all this period, not only the Investigating Officer but also the complainant endeavoured their best to search out Mst. Shazia Batool. Muhammad Yousaf could be arrested by the Investigating Officer on 2-12-1999 from General Bus Stand, Multan. Mst. Shazia Batool was available with him at the time of his arrest. The Investigating Officer soon thereafter subjected her to extensive interrogation and her statement was reduced into writing. She narrated the story of her sufferings at the hands of the petitioner and few others, namely, Jamal, Khalida Qureshi, Alain Sher, Falak Sher and others. She levelled allegations of abduction against Mst. Abida Bano as well as Mst. Aisha Jamal and her sale to Muhammad Yousaf petitioner by Jamal, Falak Sher and Mst. Aisha Jamal. Accusations of Zina-bil-Jabr were brought against Muhammad Yousaf petitioner, Alam Sher and Falak Sher at different places. She also alleged that her Nikahnama with the petitioner was forged, although she did not contract marriage with him. She was also got medically examined through. a Woman Medical Officer by the police. According to the medico-legal report, her age was 15 years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service following points for consideration:---
(i) That there was two months inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police and as such story of the complainant is rendered incredible.
(ii) That Mst. Shazia Batool was a legally-wedded wife of the petitioner as is reflected from Nikahnama dated 25-10-1999.
(iii) That suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been instituted by the petitioner before a Judge Family Court at Multan.
(iv) That investigation of this case was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, Multan and he gave clean slate to the petitioner. He recommended discharge of the accused from the case, but the Court concerned did not agree with the said report and turned down application of the police.
(v) That, in any case, case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
(vi) That there are few discrepancies between the first information report and statements of the prosecution witnesses, whose names figure in the first information report and as such; prosecution version is rendered doubtful.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State too strongly argued that horrible are the allegations brought against the petitioner and his suit for restitution of conjugal rights already stood dismissed for non-prosecution. It has absolutely no bearing upon merits of the case. He submitted that the petitioner, Alam Sher, Falak Sher, Abida Bano, Jamal and Mst. Aisha Jamal are being challaned in the case. Falak Sher could not be arrested so far'. He has become fugitive from law. haste. Following are the most prominent reasons behind this:--
(1) Excessive danger of being exposed to hatred, contempt and ridicule in the society and further victims are likely to suffer 'great losses in many ways.
(2) They have no faith in the ability of the police to capture the offenders. They are most afraid of contemptuous and unsympathetic treatment from police.
(3) The police are the master of their will. . They do not register cases easily, when approached by the complainants. They put them off on one pretext or the other.
(4) Most frequently cases are not registered. by the police through ordinary prescribed procedure. People have to adopt special measures for getting their cases registered, like, filing of writs and sometimes on the directions of hierarchy of police, when approached, at a later stage.
(5) The conduct of negligent, inefficient and dishonest police officials deserves adverse criticism and they must be taken to task for refusing to register cases with due haste.
(6) Column No.5 of the F.I.R is very meaningful. It reads:-
By merely writing few words, Bila Tauqaf, they get themselves absolved from their criminal liability.
A large number of writs are being filed by the people, who are afflicted of the police excesses and atrocities which, of course, has considerably added .to the work load of the superior judiciary. This unholy practice of the police deserves to be crushed with iron hands.
(8) Non-registration of cases, improper, unfair and dishonest investigations are also to be taken as contributory factors towards enormous increase in the number of writs tiled every year.
The Government shall have to take effective measures to control over, this situation created by the police.
9. These days due to recent advances in the science, criminals use most modern devices to picturise the whole scene and, as such, the victims of sexual assault are driven to the realm of fear, freight, terror and harassment because they know that major scandals will be created. By adopting this technique, the offenders tell the victims to be their sex partners for all the time to come or in the alternative to face maximum disgrace at their hands.
10. In this case vital interest of the complainant was safe and sound come back of his daughter. He by coming into contact with the petitioner beseeched him to return his daughter, but he behaved in a most indecent manner. Contents of the first information report are self-explanatory on this point. Cases are got registered when everything goes out of head and in this case it was the last resort with the complainant to report the matter having miserably failed in his hot pursuit of restoration of his daughter.
11. Just on the false pretext of marriage, she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the petitioner, which is undeniable one. Javed Ashraf, S.-I. was able to collect handsome evidence against the petitioner and he found all the accused guilty in the matter. Opinion of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Multan is not backed by sound and convincing reasons deep seated in evidence. It is based upon conjectures, surmises and flimsy grounds. Opinion of Additional Superintendent of Police is no evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon at this stage.
12. It is, however, observed that there is nothing to disbelieve statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The petitioner, prima facie, appears to be guilty of a heinous offence under public condemnation. This petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./M-255/L
Petition dismissed.