ALLAH REHAN Versus STATE
Allah Bakhsh petitioner alongwith 7 others was tried under sections 363 and 376, P.P.C. on the charges of kidnapping Mst. Manzooran and committing rape upon her. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses. Mst. Manzooran stated that she was forcibly taken away by Allah Bakhsh petitioner and his co‑accused. She stated that the occurrence was seen by her mother Zaib Elahi (P.W.5) and her father Muhammad Hussain (P.W.4) and others. She stated that after kidnapping her, Allah Bakhsh petitioner and his three companions committed rape with her. In cross‑examination she stated that she had not made any statement before Magistrate at Vehari. She denied the factum of her Nikah with the petitioner. Muhammad Hussain (P.W.4) and Mst. Zaib Elahi (P.W.5) stated that Mst. Manzooran was about 13/14 years of age at the time of occurrence and she was forcibly removed by the petitioner and his co‑accused. The prosecution also produced birth certificate Exh.P.B. which shows that age of Mst. Manzooran was 13 years at the time of occurrence. Lady Doctor Mrs. Nazir Azhar (P.W.10) had medically examined Mst. Manzooran on 16‑11 1974. She found some injuries on the person of Mst. Manzooran Mai. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the charge of kidnapping. His plea, was that Mst. Manzooran was sui juris at the time of her alleged kidnapping and she had contracted marriage with him with her consent. In defence he produced 4 witnesses. Fatal Din (D.W.1) stated that he had performed Nikah of Mst. Manzooran with Allah Bakhsh on 21‑6‑1974. He proved Nikahnama Exh.DA. Sadiq (D.W.2) is the witness of Nikah of the petitioner with Mst. Manzooran. He supported Nikahnama Exh.DA. Dr. Abdul Haq (D.W.3) stated that he had examined Mst. Manzooran on 3‑10‑1974. In his opinion, her age was 16/17 years at that time. A.Y. Khalid Magistrate (D.W.4) stated that Mst. Manzooran had appeared and made statement before him. The petitioner had filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Mst. Manzooran copy whereof is Exh.D.
4. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under sections 363 and 376, P.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof 6 months' R.I. on each count. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under sections 363 and 376 reduced the sentence from 4 years to 3 years' R.I. The fine awarded by the trial Court was however, maintained, hence this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Muhammad Hussain (P.W.4) and Mst. Zaib Elahi (P.W.5) are parents of the prosecutrix that no independent witness has been produced to depose about the kidnapping of Mst. Manzooran by the petitioner and his co‑accused; that the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her parents has virtually been disbelieved to the extent of 7 co‑accused and as such the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of their statements which I do not see in the case in hand; that Mst. Manzooran had levelled the charge of rape against three co‑accused of the petitioner, who have since been acquitted; that A.Y. Khalid Magistrate who is an independent witness had stated that Mst. Manzooran had appeared and made statement before him whereas Mst. Zaib Elahi stated that she did not appear before Magistrate at Vehari. From the statement of Dr. Abdul Haq (D.W.3) it appears that Mst. Manzooran was sui juris at the time of occurrence. Fazal Dm (D.W.1) and Sadiq (D.W.2) have deposed about the Nikah of Mst. Manzooran with Allah Bakhsh petitioner, whereas Mst. Manzooran has disowned her Nikah with the petitioner.
7. For what has been said above, I feel that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, so he is acquitted of the charge. He stands discharged of the bail bond.
SA./A‑587/L Acquittal ordered.