IN THE COURT OF HAKAM KHAN BAKHAR v IN THE COURT OF HAKAM KHAN BAKHAR ‘ADDL: SESSIONS JUDGE, ARIFWALA. Sessions Case No. 19-ASJ/2022 Sessions Trial No. 27-ASJ/2022 The State......V8.. Ghulam Mustafa S/o Qasim, Caste Rehmani, R/O Chak Jalal Shah, Arifwala. Case FIR No.03 Dated 01.01.2022 Offences U/S _337-J/376 PPC. Police Station: Rang Shah, Arifwala. Date of decision: 13.12.2022 Present: Accused Ghulam Mustafa is on bail alongwith his learned counsel Sheikh Faizan Dawood Advocate. Complainant Shahzad Ahmad, PW Kausar Bibi and-victim Rehana Bibi are in person. Learned DDPP for State. JUDGMENT: Shahzad Ahmad complainant (PW-1) by moving an application (Exh.PA) got registered this case narrating therein that on 30.12.2021, accused sent dinner from his hotel in the house of complainant having intention to commit rape with Mst.Rehana Bibi, the sister of complainant. Complainant and his family members had dinner sent by the accused upon which complainant and his all family members became unconscious as the dinner was intoxicated. On the same day, at 09:00 P.M, accused Ghulam Musatfa alongwith two unknown accused entered into the house of complainant and committed rape forcibly with Mst.Rehana the sister of the complainant yelp27eh whereas two unknown accused persons Kept on guarding the’ 1D- HAKAMKGANBAKHAR eeurrence. On next morning, Mst.Rehana Bibi told the occurrence ions Jud , é Ae ewe 8” committed with her to the complainant in presence of witnesses. Hence this case was got registered.ae 388° Vs. Ghulam Mustata Shahzad Ahmad. the case. ad; the complainant of Mst.Kausar Bibi; the witness. Mst.Rehana Bibi; the victim. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the accused submitted application under section 265-K Cr.P.C for his acquittal contending therein that the complainant, Mst.Kausar Bibi and victim Mst-Rehana Bibi appeared as PW-1 to PW-3 but they have not supported the prosecution stance and there will be a futile exercise to continue the further proceedings in this case. 6. Learned defence counsel has argued that the accused was involved in this case falselys that the prosecution has failed to Prove the charge against the accused a8 the complainant, witness and vitim of the case while appearing 6° pw-1, PW-2 and PW-S respectively have negated the prosecution versions hne has further submitted that the complainant, Mst:Kausar Bibi and vet MstRehana Bibi have got recoraed theif statements wherein {DeY ave not supported the on version. He has aso maintained that Une oGerrencs was vt ee as the witnesses in their in the court did not also submitted that the PWS were mination by the Fearned DDPP, 130 77 eclared oe ; ce the PWws going into the favour ARRAN KHAN BAKHAR, jagt out 10 mo nothing YF? le has finally pray sd for the sa va and agaist tH aceused. He has finally PrayeThe State Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (3) qQ acceptance of application u/s 265-K Cr.P.C and for the acquittal of t 4G ast 7 Learned DDPP has argued that although private witnesses) have resiled from the prosecution story but the remaining witnesses including 1.0 and doctor are the necessary witnesses who are yet to be examined; that the accused is involved in a heinous offence against society which has to be curbed. It is prayed that the application filed by the accused may be dismissed and remaining prosecution witnesses may be summoned. 8. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused. 9. It is an admitted fact that complainant Shahzad Ahmad is the brother of Mst.Rehana, the alleged victim who is star witness of the occurrence. Shahzad Ahmad complainant in his evidence stated that Ghulam Mustafa accused was running hotel at Adda 17/E.B and he was employee at the hotel of the accused. He further deposed that on 31.12.2021, when he and his family members woke up after sleep, his sister Mst.Rehana Bibi told that on last night one unknown accused came, got her woke up and tried to commit rape but upon her resistance, the said accused went away. He further deposed that his sister did not tell him about the name of accused. He also deposed that he felt that there was some intoxications administered to him and other family members due to which he and his other family members did not woke up at the time when unknown accused came and tried to commit occurrence. He further deposed that he reported the matter to police who took his thumb impression on plain paper. He further deposed that he did not nominate the accused person in his application rather it was the police who told him about the accused present in the court. He further deposed that he has taken clarification from the accused Ghulam Mustafa who is innocent. He further deposed that he has no objection if the accused present in the court be acquitted from the charge as none of the witnesses witnessed the occurrence and he is > Satisfied with regard to the innocence of the accused. The PW-2 namely 130 HARAM KHAN BATHAR in the house/place of occurrence while appearing before the court has *Aritwala deposed that Ghulam Mustafa accused was running hotel at’ Adda 17/E.B and her son Shahzad Ahmad was employee at the hotel of the’ accused. She further deposed that on 31.12.2021, when she and her family members woke up after sleep, her daughter Mst.Rehana Bibi told Mst.Kausar Bibi who is the mother of the victim who was also presentNs spe state Vs. Ghulam Mustafa ¢ gpat on last night one Unknown ag, (4) . cused to commit rape > Rot her woke : ried pe but, Upon her Tesistance, the saig up and 1S avay She further deposed that her daughter did filntehce 3 Not tell ip, name of accused, She further es » and mother that on last night, Bot her woke up and tried to commit rape ‘ut upon her resistance, the said accused went away. She further deposed that she did not tell to her brother about the name of accused, She further deposed that he on Plain paper. She further deposed that neither she nor her brother nominated the @ccused person in his application rather it was the police who told th accused as and when he will come before her. She further deposed that she has seen the accused Ghulam Mustafa Present in the court who was not the Peron who sed to commit rape rather the conn Dresent in the our ie noeeat. She further depsed that she ha Lae Sas gree peo ccqsited fom ne VBA ge as none of the witnesses witnessed the KAM KHANBAKHAR Satisfied with regard to the innoce ny occurrence and she is seal Sgesions Tus08 10. “i ence of the accused. Ail the PWs were declared hostile on the request of learned DDPP but during course of cross examination no ine, ‘could come on record which may connect the accug with the commission of occurrence, statements of the complainant, riminating material ed Ghulam Mustafa Im the presence of resiling witness and victim recording theDS The State Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (5) evidence of remaining witnesses would not be helpful for Be prosecution as that cannot be made basis for conviction of the accu: because the ocular account has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused. It is well settled principle of law that prosecution is bound to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and benefit of a slightest doubt arising in the criminal case should be extended in favour of the accused. From the evidence available on record, it can safely be held that there is no probability of conviction of the accused even if the remaining witnesses depose against the accused. In view of above situation, continuation of further proceedings in the instant case would be futile exercise and abuse of process of law as well as of court. 1. For what has been discussed above, the accused Ghulam Mustafa is acquitted of the charge under section 265-K Cr.P.C. while giving him benefit of doubt. Accused is on bail. His surety stands discharged. Sajid Munir Ahlmad is directed to, consign the file to the record room after its due completion and compilation. Announced Hakam Khan Bakhar 13.12.2022 Addl. Sessions Judge, Arifwala. Certified that this judgment consist:of Five (05) pages each of which has been dictated, read, corrected and signed by me. Hakam Khan Bakhar Addl. Sessions Judge, Arifwala.