Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No.61/L of 1986, decided on 15th March, 1987.

---Ss.10 & 16--Evidence, appreciation of--Both ocular and documentary evidence produced by prosecution not proving offences for which accused charged nor any other evidence justifying interference by High Court referred to--Interference by way of revision declined, in circumstances.

Munawar Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.

M. Ismail Qureshi and Iftikhar Ali Shah for Respondents.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.

Date of hearing: 15th March, 1987.

.--Muhammad Saleem, his brothers: Munir Ahmad alias Haji Ahmad and Shabir, sons of Rahim Bakhsh and Mst. Khurshid Jamila, wife of Ghulam Nabi, residents of Ahmadpur East, district Bahawalpur, were tried for taking away Mst. Khurshid Jamila and for zina by Muhammad Saleem with Mst. Khurshid Jamila. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, on 12-12-1985, acquitted the respondents of all charges for want of evidence. Ghulam Nabi, complainant, filed this revision against their acquittal on which this Court issued notice to respondents Nos.l and 4.

2. On the statement of Ghulam Nabi, formal first information report was registered at Police Station, City Sadiqabad, district Rahim Yar Khan, on 23-7-1981 at 3-30 p. m. in respect of an occurrence which took place on 15-7-1981. It was alleged that in the absence of the first informant, his wife, Mst. Khurshid Jamila, respondent No.4, alongwith her son Pervaiz Ahmad, 13/14 years, from her previous husband, were taken away by respondents Nos.l to 3 because respondent No.l had developed illicit relations with her The first informant was told about it by Khadim Hussain and Manzoor Ahmad neighbours on his return home. He made grievance that respondents Nos.l to 3 had taken away his wife with the intention of committing zina with her. After investigation respondents were challaned in the Court.

3. The prosecution case at the trial was proved by Ghulam Nabi P.W.2 who narrated the facts stated by him in the first information report. He is uterine brother, Khadim Hussain (P.W.3) and brother -in-law of the latter, Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.4) supported him and deposed that they saw the respondent No.4 alongwith her grown up son Pervaiz Ahmad being taken away by respondents Nos.l to 3.

4. The defence plea of respondents Nos.l to 3 was that they had no influence on respondent No.4 and had been falsely involved because they were related to her. Respondent No.4 Mst. Khurshid Jamila, stated that the three other respondents were her relations but they had not abducted her nor any of them had committed sexual intercourse with her but she left the house of first informant, Ghulam Nabi, alongwith her grown up son from her previous husband because in spite of compromise on three occasions in her three suits for dissolution of marriage, Ghulam Nabi forced her to lead immoral life. After leaving his house she had gone to live in Ahmadpur East where her son was running a tailoring shop.

5. The trial Court acquitted respondents Nos.l and 4 of the charge of zina and all the four respondents of the charge of taking away Mst. Khurshid Jamila for lack of evidence.

6. It has been argued before us that respondent No.4, Mst. Khurshid Jamila, is still living with respondent No.l and the documents produced by petitioner show that she was living with respondent No.l, in spite of decree of the Family Court. He referred to the plaint, dated 22-7-1981, in suit for dissolution of marriage, judgment of the Family Judge dismissing that suit of respondent No.4 and decreeing the suit for restitution of petitioner, judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition setting aside judgment of the District Judge and remanding the appeal and 'judgment of the District Judge of Bahawalpur, dated 10-11-1985, whereby after remand suit of respondent No.4 for dissolution of marriage was dismissed and petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that none of those documents had been exhibited in the trial Court but argued that a judicial notice of the same be taken.

7. The question in the case is whether respondents Nos.l and 4 were committing zina with each other or not aft r respondent No.4 was taken away from house vi petitioner. The trial, Court referred to the oral and documentary evidence produced fore it and after considering it in accordance with law came to the, conclusion that the offence of zina by respondents Nos. l and 4 was not proved on record nor was it proved that any offence under section 16 of the Ordinance was made out against them. The ocular and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution do not prove the offence for which respondents were charged and there is nothing for us to differ with the findings of trial Court. The petitioner has not been able to refer to any evidence justifying our interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. For the aforementioned reasons the revision has no merit and is dismissed.

S. G. D. /339/F. Sh. C. 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.