ZULFIQAR Versus ZAFAR IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS

AFTAB HUSSAIN, C.J. --Zafar Iqbal, Attaullah, and Sahib Khan Were convicted under section 354 P.P,C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha on the 20th 'February, 1982 and each of them was sentenced to two years' R.I. and Rs.1,000 as fine (in default 6 months' R.I). They were also charged under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddood) Ordinance, 1979 but were not convicted or sentenced under that section.

2. The appellants have filed Criminal Appeal 17/1 of 1983 against their conviction and sentence under section 354 P.P.C. The complainant Zulfiqar Ali has filed a cross-appeal 35/1 of 1982 against the acquittal of appellant on the charge under section 11 of the Ordinance.

3. The appeal against acquittal is not competent at the instance of a private complainant. His only remedy is to apply to the District .Magistrate under section 417, Cr.P.C. for filing a State appeal. This appeal against' the acquittal Criminal Appeal No.35/1, is therefore, dismissed.

4. The prosecution case is that on 10th October, 1980 at about 3-30 p.m. the appellant committed trespass into the house of Mst. Khadija and dragged her to a distance of two killas towards their own Dera by catching hold of her hair and arms. Attaullah and Zafar Iqbal were armed with hatchets while Sahib Khan was empty handed. The Kurta of Mst. Khudija was torn. She was rescued by Sibghatullah P.W.6 but the appellant took away her Chadar. The reason for this act was that the appellants suspected that Karam Elahi brother of Mst. Khadija had illicit relations with Mst. Sahiban sister of Attaulah accused.

5. The first information report of this offence was recorded on the 11th of October, 1980 at 9-15 P.m. at Police Station Noorpur, Thai at the instance of Zulfiqar, P.W.3 uncle of Mst. Khadija, who produced her torn Kurta Ex.P/I before the police. The same was taken into possession by memo. P.B. in the presence of Sarfraz P.W.2.

6. Zulfiqar P.W.3 explained the short delay in the F.I.R. by explaining that he could not go to the Police Station due to night since the story of occurrence was narrated to him at Isha time in his village. Mst. Khadija, P.W.4 in a convincing statement gave the full story about her forcible abduction to a distance of two killas when she was rescued by Sibghatullah, P.W.6, This was fully corroborated by the statement of P.W.6. Sibghatullah. Ziaullah brother of Mst. Khadija, P.W.5 also verified the story as an eye-witness. He stated that he followed his sister raising an alarm but the accused threatened him that 'if he came near he would be killed.

7. The appellants in their statements merely denied the occurrence and attributed this case to enmity which is not substantiated by any evidence. The case is proved to the hilt. The appellants were rightly convicted at least for committing the offence under section 354, P.P.C.

8. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in the F.I.R. but this argument is without force as has been explained satisfactorily by Zulifiqar. It was also urged that the witnesses were close relatives. This may be so that this by itself is no grounds for disbelieving the particularly when there is no enmity between the accused and the appellants. Reference was made, to some contradictions but none of them are material. It was lastly argued that the appellants were not more than 17 years of age. This argument would also be without force since they have been dealt with quite leniently by being convicted under section 345, P.P.C. only.

9. The appeal is dismissed but the appellants shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and the time spent by them in Jail during the trial shall be computed from the period, of their sentence.

S.A. /402/F-Sh. Appeals dismissed.