' JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment, dated 12-5-2000 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby Criminal Appeal No,82/K of 1999 filed by the appellant against his conviction under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ":the Ordinance") was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts are that on 17-12-1998 victim Faiza along with her sisters namely Asma and Naeema had gone to Anmol Academy situated in Bihar Colony as usual and in the afternoon Naeema and Asma returned whereas victim went to the house of her grandmother. At about 4-00 p.m. She was brought by her grandmother in her own house who was weeping and on inquiry she disclosed that while she was playing outside the house of his uncle, appellant came there and gave her ten rupees note and asked her to bring 'change'. When she brought the 'change' appellant took her to the upper room of his house and committed unnatural offence with her. She felt pain and raised cries as such she was released and subsequently she was brought home by her grandmother. The wife of the complainant approached appellant, who was adamant and asked her to do whatever she wanted. 'On coming to know about the incident Muhammad Aslam, complainant lodged report on 19-12-1998 before Muhammad Anwar, A.S.-I. Who recorded the F.I.R.
Visited the spot and took into possession the Shalwar which was stained with blood Exh.P.7 and sent it to Chemical Examiner and got the victim medically examined. According to birth certificate Exh.P.21 victim was of 7 years and 5 months age at the time of occurrence. Appellant was arrested on 19-12-1998. On completion of investigation he was sent to face trial under section 12 of the Ordinance.
3. To establish its case prosecution examined complainant Muhammad Aslam (P.W.1), Mst. Asia mother of the victim (P.W.2), Faiza victim (P.W.3), Mst. Amina, grandmother of victim (P.W.4), Muhammad Ashraf, nephew of appellant (P.W.5), Lady Doctor Robina Hassan, who conducted medical examination of victim (P.W.6), Mehboob Ali Dayo, Judicial Magistrate (P.W.7), Sunmuk Doltani, MLO who conducted medical examination of appellant (P.W.8) and Muhammad Anwar, I.O.
(P.W.9).
4. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant denied the case and claimed innocence. He, however, did not opt to examine himself on oath, but examined one Jan Muhammad D.W.1 in his defence.
5. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 12-11-1999 convicted the appellant under section 12 of the Ordinance and sentenced him to 25 years R.I. And fine of Rs,10,000 or in default six months R.I. The fine, if recovered, be paid to the victim. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant.
6. Feeling dissatisfied, he preferred appeal before Federal Shariat Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
7. Appellant filed Jail Petition No,13(S) of 2000 in which leave to appeal was granted on 7-6-2001 to consider as to whether the offence would fall under section 12 of the Ordinance or under section 377 of Pakistan Penal Code.
8. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant and Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that judgments of both the Courts below are well reasoned and in accordance with law. According to him appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced under section 12 of the Ordinance as ingredients of section 361, Pakistan Penal Code are attracted in this case.
10. On the other hand Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh supported the impugned judgment and argued that ingredients of section 12 of the Ordinance are fully attracted in this case.
11. From the evidence on record it stands established that appellant had committed offence falling within the ambit of section 12 of the Ordinance and was rightly convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below. The impugned judgment is not only well-reasoned but is based on proper appreciation of facts and law and thus does not merit interference. Accordingly appeal being without merit is dismissed.