HAQ NAWAZ AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, whereby he on 4-11-1980 convicted Haq Nawaz, Rab Nawaz and Gul Muhammad appellants under section 366/376, P.P.C. and sentenced them as under:-

(1) Haq Nawaz appellant

(i) Under section 366, P.P.C. to 5 years' R.I.

(ii) Under section 376, P.P.C. to 7 years' R.I.

(2) Rab Nawaz and Gul Muhammad appellants, under section 366,

P . P . C . to 5 years' R.I. each.

The co-accused namely Mst. Pathani and Mst. Sohni were convicted under section 366, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment already suffered by them.

2. The prosecution case, briefly, is that Mst. Pathani and Mst. Sohni co-accused deceitfully took Mst. Pathani, the alleged abductee from her house and thereafter, the appellants forcibly took her away on a horse, kept her in a house where Haq Nawaz committed rape upon her. ,

3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 6 witnesses. Mst. Pathani P.W.2 supported the allegations against .the appellants and co-accused. She stated that she was deceitfully taken out of her house by Mst. Pathani and Mst. Sohni and .was thereafter forcibly taken away by the appellants and that Haq Nawaz committed rape upon her. Abdoo P.W.1 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.4 supported the version of the abduction of Mst. Pathani by the appellants and their co-accused. Lady Doctor Mst. Shamim Akhtar P.W.3 medically examined Mst. Pathani and stated that sexual intercourse had been committed with her. Shaukat lqbal Magistrate P.W.6 had recorded the statement of Mst. Pathani under section 164, Cr.P.C. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not pr9duce evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction. He has requested for the reduction of sentence on the ground of compromise between the parties. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the request of the learned counsel for the appellants.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that since Mst. Pathani and other two eye-witnesses who were quite reliable had supported the allegations of abduction and rape against the appellants, therefore, the trial Court had rightly convicted them.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence, I find that it was during trial before the learned Magistrate that the parties arrived air compromise; that Mst. Pathani, the alleged abductee was married with Haq Nawaz appellant; that in exchange the sister of Haq Nawaz was married to a cousin of the alleged abductee; that 1st. Pathani P.W.2 has appeared before this Court alongwith children born out of the wedlock and stated that she is living happily with Haq Nawaz appellant. In these circumstances, I feel that the imprisonment suffered and undergone by the appellants, during trial and after their conviction, would meet the case. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is. therefore, reduced to one already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They stand discharged of the bail bonds.

S.A./H-60/L Sentence reduced.