THE STATE Versus ABDUL KARIM

This State appeal arises from the judgment of learned Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, whereby he on 4‑4‑1978 acquitted Abdul Karim and 6 others of the charges under sections 376/368, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case was that the respondents abducted Mst. Alam Khatoon and thereafter rape was committed on her. The respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 11 witnesses. Mst. Alam Khatoon P.W.11 supported the version of her abduction and subsequent rape upon her. Lady Doctor Mst. Aisha Sher Muhammad proved the medico‑legal report of Mst. Alam Khatoon, Dr. Ashiq Ali P.W.4 had examined Abdul Karim accused and given opinion with regard to his capability to perform sexual intercourse, Muhammad Din P.W.3 and Muhammad Afzal P.W.6 are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. 'They have supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They produced 4 witnesses in defence.

5. The learned trial Court while disbelieving prosecution version of the occurrence was of the view that Mst. Alam Khatoon was a consenting party to sexual intercourse.

6. Learned counsel for State submitted that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondents and the learned trial Court has acquitted them without legal and factual justification. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for State. I find that there is a delay for 12/13 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that Muhammad Din complainant had not raised any alarm on the night of occurrence; that Mst. Alam Khatoon had not offered any resistance at the time of sexual intercourse with her; that the story of the prosecution that the sexual intercourse was committed by one of the accused in the presence of his father and paternal uncle does not appeal to reason; that the learned trial Court has applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by it. It is well‑settled that once an accused is acquitted then strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interfering with the judgment of acquittal which do not see in the case in hand.

For what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed.

M. Y. H./S‑160/L Appeal dismissed.