MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner, stands convicted under section 451/354, P.P.C. for criminal house trespass and for outraging the modesty of Mst. Perveen P.W.1 and sentenced to one year's R.I. on each count.

2. At the eventful lime, Mst. Perveen P.W. was sleeping on the roof of her house. The allegations against the petitioner are that he went on the roof of the house and outraged her modesty.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses. Mst. Perveen P.W.1 stated that on the night of occurrence, she was sleeping on the roof of her house. It was at 3-00 a.m. that she found the petitioner on the roof. The petitioner caught hold her arms. On this, she raised alarm and the petitioner jumped into the adjoining house of Muhammad Iqbal. P.W. Muhammad Akbar P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 have supported the statement made by Mst. Perveen. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced Muhammad Rashid D.W.1 and Muhammad Yaqoob D.W.2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R., that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No one has appeared for the State.

6. I have considered the matter carefully. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was not seen scaling over the wall of the house or entering into the house or going on the roof through stairs. He was simply found standing on the roof. I feel that the act of climbing on the roof is not a criminal house trespass punishable under section 448 or 451, P.P.C. The relevant provisions of P.P.C. may be produced conveniently:--

"Section 441.--- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit `criminal trespass'."

The words `enter into' or upon property of another are of great significance. This will show that the act of being present on the roof is neither entering into nor entering upon the property, so the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 451, .P.P.C.

7. As for the conviction of the petitioner under section 354, P.P.C., I find that no independent witness has been produced to corroborate the statement of Mst. Perveen. The only eye-witness is the brother of Mst. Perveen, who admittedly had not made any statement before the police. Furthermore, there was a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R. This being the position, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

8. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.

H.B.T./M-2972/L Revision accepted.