SHCHNAZ BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD MANSHA

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that Muhammad Yousaf was tried under section 354, P.P.C. on the charge of outraging the modesty of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Mst. Sharifan appeared as P.W.1. She stated that the petitioner had caught hold of her by arms and breast and the occurrence was seen by Muhammad Ashraf, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2). Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2) has supported the statement of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Sattar were not produced by the prosecution.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence, one witness was produced. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by the appellant failed on 3‑9‑1984, hence this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities such as contradictions and discrepancies; that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that there is no corroboration of the statement of Mst. Sharifan (P.W.1). In the alternative, the learned counsel requested for reduction in sentence. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. I have considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Mst. Sharifan has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner which amount to outraging her modesty within the meaning of section 354, P.P.C., that she had no serious enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in the case; that Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.2) has supported the statement of Sharifan in material particulars; that the two witnesses have faced the test of cross‑examination successfully; that the statements of the two prosecution witnesses do not suffer from infirmity such as material contradictions, major discrepancies and dishonest improvements. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The defence witness, namely, Mian Ghulam Rasool has rather supported the allegations against the petitioner. For all these reasons I am convinced that the petitioner has rightly been convicted under section 354, P.P.C.

6. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case that the occurrence took place in the year 1982; that the petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial and that he is not a previous convict, I reduce the sentence from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I. The petitioner will surrender himself before the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar within 7 days from today. On his failure to do so, the learned A.C. will get him arrested and send him to jail to serve the sentence.

S.A./M‑1229/L Sentence reduced.