ZULFIQAR Versus THE STATE

Bashir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ramzan got a case registered under section 363/380, P.P.C. and Martial Law Regulation 3, on 13-3-1978 against Mst. Salima Bibi, Muhammad Bashir, Zulfiqar and Iftikhar, for the abduction of his daughter Mst. Rifat. In that, he had also alleged that his daughter while leaving the house had taken away golden ornaments, unstitched clothes, and cash. The occurrence was stated to have taken place on 8-3-1978.

2. Mst. Rifat returned of her own on 27-3-1978. Her father met her in Chowk. He produced her before the police, whereafter her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was submitted to Court under section 363/380/376, P.P.C.

3. Learned Magistrate Section 30 after trial, vide judgment dated 14-10-1980, convicted Zulfiqar, Mst. Salima Bibi, Muhammad Bashir and Iftikhar Ahmad, under section 376/363/411, P.P.C. and awarded sentences as follows:--

Zulfiqar

(i) Under section 376, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 3 years plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 6 months.

(ii) Under section 411, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 6 months.

(iii) Under section 363, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for one year plus to pay a fine of Rs.200 in default whereof to suffer further R.1. for 3 months.

(All sentences to run concurrently).

Mst. Salima Bibi

Under section 363, P.P.C. sentenced till rising of the Court plus to pay a fine of Rs.200 in default whereof to suffer R.I. for two months.

Muhammad Bashir and Iftikhar Ahmed Abroad

Under section 363, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for one year each, plus to pay a fine of Rs.200 each, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 3 months each.

4. Zulfiqar, Muhammad Bashir and Iftikhar filed appeal before the Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Muhammad Bashir and Iftikhar Ahmad and acquitted them vide judgment dated 19-12-1981. The appeal filed by Zulfiqar was, however, dismissed vide same judgment.

5. The judgments of both the lower Courts have been assailed through the instant revision petition.

6. During the trial, Zulfiqar had taken the plea that Mst. Rifat was a major, being above sixteen and that she had joined him of her own, as she wanted to marry him. However, he could not produce cogent evidence in support of his stance.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after having argued the petition at some length, has chosen not to press the same on merits. He has prayed that as a long period, i.e. 13 years has already passed since when the offence was allegedly committed, the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to that of already undergone, for, the petitioner had already suffered a long due to prolonged litigation.

8. Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner, I have gone through the record and I am convinced that no case for interference in the judgment of convictions is made out. The same are, therefore, maintained.

9. As noted above, the occurrence had taken place in March, 1978. The petitioner was arrested soon thereafter. The trial continued till October, 1980. The appeal filed by the petitioner after conviction, was disposed of on 19-12-1981. The petitioner thus had undergone stress and strains of trial for about 3 years. Since thereafter the petition is pending in this Court. During all this period, the petitioner must have remained under a suspended state of mind. He had remained in jail for 20 days after conviction by the trial Court, and had suffered about 3 months' R.I. after dismissal of the appeal and before he was released on bail after suspension of sentences by this Court on 10-3-1982. Thus, he has already undergone about 3-1/2 months sentence, apart from having remained under stress and anxiety during all these years.

Mst. Rifat also during this period might have married and settled. In fact, she might be having children. Sending back the petitioner to jail after such a long time, would be reminding all concerned that Mst. Rifat had once been a victim of rape. Rapetition of such a story might affect her matrimonial relations and career of her children.

In the circumstances, I think, it will be in the fitness of things that sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone. Order accordingly.

10. The sentences of fine, however, are maintained. The fine shall be deposited by the petitioner within 30 (thirty) days. Learned counsel has undertaken to inform the petitioner to deposit the fine.

N.H.Q./Z-204/L Sentence reduced.