Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1163 of 1967, decided on 9th January 1969.

Ss. 366 & 376/511‑Statement of prosecutrix corroborated by independent witness, injuries on her person and recovery of incriminating articles at instance of accused‑No background of enmity between prosecutrix's family and that of accused‑Conviction and sentence of accused upheld.

Raja Afrasiab Khan for Petitioners.

Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi for A.‑G. for the State.

The two petitioners were convicted by the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jhelum, dated 19th of April 1967, under section 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code and were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. Abdul Aziz petitioner was also convicted under sections 376/511, P. P. C. and was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. Yaqub petitioner was, in addition, convicted under section 354, P. P. C. and was sentenced to one years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently. Their appeal to the learned Sessions Judge failed.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioners, as unfolded at the trial, is this : On 23rd of June 1966, at about chhahwela Mst. Nasim Akhtar (P. W. 1) who is the prosecutrix in this case, was returning from the house of her aunt Mst. Masoom Bi, after unloading a basket of onions, when she was caught held of from behind by Yaqub petitioner. She resisted but Yaqub was joined by Abdul Aziz. They carried her into a room in the house of Yaqub where boosa was stored. Yaqub made indecent overtures and caught hold of the breasts of the girl. She resisted and this tussle resulted in the tearing of her shirt. Yaqub then went out but Abdul Aziz remained inside. He relieved the prosecutrix of her gold necklace. He also broke the string of her shalwar and forcibly took it off. He made her lie on the ground and attempted to commit rape on her. She continued resisting and raised an alarm. Mamara Khan (P. W. 2), Muhammad Hussain (P. W. 3) who is the brother of the prosecutrix and Mst. Zubaida Begum (P. W. 4), a cousin of the prosecutrix, arrived at the spot. Abdul Aziz ran away with the shalwar and chappal of the prosecutrix. He also took away from the spot his loin cloth which he had thrown away while attempting to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. A little while later, Muhammad Din the father‑in‑law of the prosecutrix and Mst. Masoom Bi, the aunt of the prosecutrix, to whose house she had carried the onions, also came. She was taken home. The father‑in‑law of the prosecutrix is an old man. Her mother‑in‑law had gone out. She came back after 3 or 4 hours and then she was carried by her brother to village Naugran where they learned that the police was there in connection with some other case. A report Exh. P. A. was written to the dictation of the prosecutrix at village Naugran by Kamal Hussain Shah A. S. I. (P. W. 6). A formal F. I. R. was drawn on its basis.

3. The prosecutrix was examined by Lady Doctor Mst. Razia Sajjad (P. W. 5), on 24th of June 1966. She found a number of linear scratches on her right and left arms. There were bruises and scratches on her legs also. There was a scratch also on her breast.

4. Abdul Aziz petitioner was examined by Dr. Hamiddullah (P. W. 7) who found a scabbed scratch on his nose and another scabbed scratch on his left cheek. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were of two to three days' duration.

5. The police during the investigation recovered the broken pieces of the bangles Exh. P. 411 to 29 from the room belonging to Yaqub where the prosecutrix was said to have been taken away. Abdul Aziz also led to the recovery of shalwar and chappal of the prosecutrix. Yaqub petitioner took up the plea that he had an illicit liaison with the prosecutrix and was talking to her when there was a hue and cry and her brother Muhammad Hussain came and took her away. Abdul Aziz stated that Yaqub had taken refuge in his house and he was involved because of his relationship with Yaqub. Abdul Aziz also stated that he bad received the injuries which were found on his person about eight days before the occurrence in a village fair where some body had struck his head against him.

6. In the present petition, it is submitted that Mamara Khan belongs to another Chak which is at a distance of about three kos from the place of occurrence. He is a friend of the family of the prosecutrix and should not have been believed. As to the other two witnesses it is stated that Muhammad Hussain, is brother of the prosecutrix Mst. Zubaida is her cousin. It is also submitted that the report was extremely delayed and the effect of this delay was not properly examined by the Courts below.

7. I have gone through the record and I find that the evidence was properly appreciated by the Courts below. Mamara is a completely independent witness and he states that he had come with his ailing son to village Sanghoi to seek the advice of a Hakeem. He admits that he is friendly to the brother of the prosecutrix, but he has no animus to falsely involve the petitioners. On the own showing of Yaqub, it was Muhammad Hussain P. W. who had taken away the girl from the spot. The circumstantial evidence shows that the plea of Yaqub petitioner that he was carrying on with the prosecutrix is false. There are injuries on the back, the legs and arms of the prosecutrix. This corroborates her story that the two petitioners had assaulted her and she was resisting, the assault. There is further corroboration of the prosecution story provided by the recovery of the broken bangles and the shalwar and chappal of the prosecutrix at the instance of Abdul Aziz petitioner. There is no background of enmity between the prosecutrix's family and that of the petitioners. The house of Yaqub is admittedly at a distance of 20 to 25 paces from the house of prosecutrix, and it is, therefore, natural that her relatives who live by should have been attracted to the spot.

8. The Courts below have also examined the effect of delay in lodging the F. I. R. The reason given by the prosecutrix is that her father‑in‑law being of old age, she was waiting for her mother‑in‑law. Her mother‑in‑law came after more than three hours. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in any case the report should have been lodged by noon. We may take note of the fact that in such cases the family of the victim is usually reluctant to report the matter to the police and they take time in deliberations because according to the notions prevalent in the country‑side, such circumstances bring infamy to the family concerned. The prosecution in this case may not have acted with as much speed as the learned counsel for the petitioners expected them to do, but he has not been able to show that this delay, has, in any way, affected the merits of the prosecution case. The two petitioners were seen by Mamara Khan at the time of the incident and the prosecutrix has also ascribed to them specific parts. Their presence at the spot is proved beyond doubt.

9. In my view, therefore, the petitioners were rightly convicted and sentenced. This revision petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.