Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 991 of 1964, decided on 15^th April 1976.

‑‑‑‑ S. 439‑‑Revision‑Prosecutrix a girl of age, and appearing to be a consenting party to her elopment with her paramour‑Nothing to indicate that judgment of acquittal recorded by trial Court was perverse or based on artificial reasonings‑‑Revision, held, of no merits and dismissed, in circumstances of case.‑‑[Revision (criminal)].

Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for the State.

Date of hearing : 15th April 1976.

This is a revision petition filed by Ramzan petitioner under section 439, Cr. P. C. directed against the judgment of Mr. Muhammad Jaleel Khan, P. C. S., Magistrate First Class, Sialkot dated 30‑1‑1964, whereby he acquitted Shabbir, Rafi, Nawab, Mst. Kishwar, Maqbool and Siddiq respondents of tile charges under section 363/366/376, P. P. C. This revision petition was admitted and notice was issued against Rafi, Nawab, Maqbool and Siddiq whereas it was dismissed qua Mst. Kishwar and was not pressed qua Shabbir.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Ramzan petitioner father of Mst. Manzooran prosecutrix after Independence settled in village Bara Pind, District Sialkot. Mst. Manzooran prosecutrix was born to him in this village on 29‑11‑1947. As the two girls i.e. Mst. Kishwar co‑accused and Mst. Manzooran P. W. were friends during their young age, they used to visit each other frequently. On the fateful night Mst. Kishwar co‑accused approached Mst. Manzooran at her house and asked her to accompany her as she wanted to go out to ease herself. On this Mst. Manzooran P. W. obliged her friend. In fact it seemed to be a nuse and as soon as the two girls approached the jungle, Rafi, Nawab, Shabbir, Maqbool, Shafi and Siddiq accused suddenly appeared armed with Takwa, knife and Dangs. Takwa and knife were attributed to Nawab and Rafi respectively. The prosecutrix was forcibly caught hold of by the accused and she was taken away under duress. Mst. Kishawar went back to her house after she had performed her part in this drama of abduction. According to the prosecution Omar Din alias Kaka P. W. of village Bara Pind had seen the accused taxing away Mst. Manzooran. He informed the petitioner, the father of the prosecutrix about this mischief.

3. The case of the prosecution was that after the abduction, the prosecutrix was first taken to village Dudho Chak, District Sialkot and confined her in the house of Allah Dad. While in the house of Allah Dad Shabbir accused only stayed with her and the remaining accused went back to their village. The girl was taken from village to village and was detained in different places but was ultimately recovered from Sialkot by the police when she was going in Tehsil Bazar, with Shabbir accused.

4. She was medically examined at the instance of the police by Lady Doctor Zahida. According to the Lady Doctor the girl was above sixteen years of age. The case of the defence as given out from the statement of Shabbir co‑accused was that the girl was major aged eighteen years and had eloped with him for the purpose of marriage. He also claimed carnal intimacy with this girl before the actually eloped with him. Rests of the accused denied their participation in this crime and professed their innocence.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the four accused/respondents stand fully implicated by the evidence of Muhammad Sharif, Khair Din and Jamal before whom they made an extra judicial confession. It was further submitted that the seventeen witnesses produced at the trial fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court was not justified to acquit the present respondents.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has submitted that principles which are taken into consideration in matters of revision against acquittal are absolutely different from those which are kept in view while deciding an appeal against acquittal. According to the learned counsel the law on this point is now settled by the superior Courts of this country which lays down that even if after reading the evidence, the appellate Court has found that a different view was possible than the one taken by the trial Court, it would refrain from interfering with the conclusion of the trial Court unless it found that judgment was either perverse or based on artificial reasoning. It was submitted that judgment of trial Court was based on good reasons and justified no interference.

7. I have given my anxious thought to all the contentions raised by both the learned counsel and find that Mst. Manzooran prosecutrix was a consenting party to her elopement and her conduct during the period in which she was taken away from village to village, clearly shows that she had eloped with her paramour and was not in any way forcibly abducted. If a major girl like Mst. Manzooran chooses to live with her paramour, nobody is required to stop this abduction. It is only in the case of forcible abduction that assistance is sought from outside quarters to make the attempt successful but as observed earlier when the girl herself is willing to go out, nobody on the earth can stop her from doing so. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the case of Mst. Manzooran was of simple elopement and not abduction. Leaving aside the merits of the case, I find otherwise, that it would not be condusive to the interest of safe administration of criminal justice to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court which was passed in year 1964, after taking into consideration all aspects of the case.

8. The learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that the complainant in this case has also died and it was his son who was later on substituted to carry this torch to its destination. I am afraid that this petition can hardly be compared with a torch because this torch shows no light in the attending circumstances.

9. The result is that the petition stands dismissed as being without any merits.

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.