2003 P Cr (PLP)

9. Sabir Rasheed has narrated the incident. Besides than this he has also stated to have lodged report/F.I.R. Exh.P.E. and produced his Shirt p. 1 and Shalwar P.2 before the Investigating Officer, who took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F.

10. Muhammad Akram has also narrated the incident. He is also an attesting witness of the Exh.P.F.

11. Muhammad Nawaz has deposed about his investigation of the case.

12. The two appellants in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. have denied the allegation appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They have stated that in fact the complainant had brought a boy to the under construction hospital in Tulamba. He wanted to commit sodomy upon him. They got rescued the boy from him. He threatened them that he will get registered the case of sodomy against them and ultimately in order to save his own-self has got registered against them falsely. They, however, did not opt to depose on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

13. The leaned trial Court after hearing the parties acquit them of the charge under section 12 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance (VII of 1979). It, however, convicted and sentenced them of the charge under section 377 read with section 511, P.P.C. as mentioned above.

14. The appellants feeling aggrieved of the same have brought the instant appeal.

15. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant No.2 as well as the State.

16. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 has only contended before, me that the prosecution evidence on record is not confidence-inspiring and rather defence plea is more probable as compared to it but still the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced him and so the same is not liable to be sustained.

17. As against the same, the learned State Counsel has supported the impugned judgment saying that prosecution evidence on record was worthy of placing reliance and it has rightly been done so and the defence plea rightly rejected.

18. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.

19. As is obvious from the above position, the complainant Sabir Rasheed and Muhammad Akram P.W. have narrated the incident. Sabir Rasheed has stuck to his version as contained in the F.I.R. Exh.P.E. Admittedly there was no enmity between him and the two appellants prior to the same. He, therefore, had no reason to falsely involve them in the case and to depose against them. His testimony stands corroborated by the evidence of Muhammad Akram. He though is his maternal-uncle but the same itself is not sufficient to discard his testimony. He has stated that on alarm he had reached the spot and found that Sabir Rasheed was lying on the ground and his Shalwar was off and the same as well as his shirt torn and he had injuries on his person and he was crying and the accused on their reaching there fled away. He, too, did not have any motive or cause to depose falsely against them (appellants/accused). His, testimony, therefore, cannot be discharged for the above reason alone that he is related to him (P.W.3). His evidence has also established the presence of two appellants at the spot at the relevant time and that of the victim in the above condition.

20. From the evidence of these P. Ws. it has been established that the two appellants had attempted to commit sodomy upon the victim Sabir Rasheed.

21. The medical evidence had also corroborated this fact. According to the doctor, the victim boy had as many as seven injuries on his person and both the appellants were fit to perform sexual intercourse. This piece of evidence, thus is fully in corroboration to the evidence of the victim.

22. Muhammad Nawaz, S.-I. had found both of than involved in the matter and that is why he had challaned them to the Court. There is nothing in his evidence to say that he had dishonestly investigated the case.

23. As regards the plea of the appellant No.2, there is no support to the same from anything on record. The same, therefore, was rightly rejected.

24. I am, therefore, convinced from the prosecution evidence on record that as regards the charge under section 377, P.P.C. read with section 511, P. P.C. against him, the same stood proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. He, therefore, was rightly convicted of the same. The sentence awarded to him already is shorter one. Hence, there is no reason to further reduce it.

25. The impugned judgment, therefore, is maintained. The appeal, therefore, to the extent of Yousaf Anjum alias Mnni has been found to be without any force. The same, therefore,' is dismissed as such.

26. He (appellant No.2 Yousaf Anjum alias Manni) is on bail. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal for re-arresting him and committing to jail to serve out his remaining sentence, if any. He, however, shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as that the period of his detention as under-trial shall be counted towards his sentence. The amount of fine, if vain shall go to the State. H.B.T./M-1960/L Appeal dismissed.