' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, C.J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-1-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer Juvenile Court, Islamabad whereby appellant Danish alias Sunny son of Muhammad Shafiq was convicted under section 377, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. Along with a fine of. Rs,5,000 or in default thereof to further suffer S.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to the appellant.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17-8-2000 report Exh.P.B., was lodged by one Zulfiqar Ali son of Muhammad Suleman with Police Station Margalla, District Islamabad, wherein, it was alleged that on the said date complainant's son namely Intizar Ahmad, aged about 7/8 years, student of class two, was found weeping. On inquiry, he disclosed that the appellant, who was living in the same Block had, at about 1-30 p.m., taken him along on the roof of Block No,17, Sector G-9/2, Islamabad and forcibly committed sodomy on him which followed bleeding. He further disclosed that on the alarm raised by him his cousin namely, Shahid and uncle Muhammad Rafiq, reached at the spot, whereupon the appellant fled. On the stated allegation formal F.I.R. Bearing No,286, dated 17-8-2000 under section 377, P.P.C. And section 12 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered at the said police station and investigation was carried out in pursuance thereof. On the completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to the Court for trial.
3. Charge was accordingly framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellant produced six witnesses, in all. P.W.1 Intizar Ahmad is the victim. P.W.2 Muhammad Rafique, is paternal-uncle of the victim. He had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Naseer had, on 24-8-2000, examined the appellant qua the potency test. He produced the M.L.R. In Court, as Exh.P.A. P.W.4 Zulfiqar Ali is the complainant. He, at the trial, reiterated the version contained in the F.I.R. P.W.5 Awais Muhammad had kept the sealed parcel said to contain semen-stained Shalwar of the accused in safe custody from 16-11- 2000 to 21-11-2000 and thereafter handed the same over to Khizar Hussain Constable for onward transmission to the Office of Chemical Examiner. P.W.6 Abdul Jabbar was, on 26-8-2000, entrusted with custody of the parcel said to contain clothes of the victim for handing the same over to Khizar Hayat, Constable. P.W.7 Dr. Basharat Hassan Shigri, had on 17-8-2000 medically examined the appellant qua the potency test. He produced the M.L.R. As Exh.P.D. P.W.8 Khizar Hayat deposed that on 28-8-2000 Moharrir had handed him over the parcel said to contain Shalwar of Intizar which was delivered by him in the office of the Chemical Examiner, intact. P.W.9 Safdar Hussain is the Investigating Officer of the case.
5. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In his above statement the appellant denied the charge and pleaded innocence. He, however, failed to lead any evidence in his defence or to appear himself as his own witness in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to the punishments as mentioned in the opening para. Hereof.
7. I have heard Mr. M. Saliheen Mughal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate, learned counsel for the State and have also perused the entire record with their assistance, minutely.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that since the appellant was under the age of 15 years and was thus a "child" within the purview of section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), therefore, his trial was conducted under the said Ordinance and, in such view of the matter, the appellant after conviction was released on probation by this Court vide order, dated 21-1-2003. The period of probation was subsequently, extended time to time vide orders, dated 14-11-2003, 12-3-2004 and 28-7-2004. He has submitted that since the appellant has undergone his sentence of imprisonment in jail as well as on probation, therefore, he may be released and his bail bonds may be discharged.
9. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate, learned counsel for the State, in view of the fact that appellant has served out his sentence of imprisonment, in jail, as well as on probation, has expressed his no objection to discharge of the bail bonds and release of the appellant.
10. In the instant case, the appellant was unequivocally charged by the victim for sodomy. His statement is duly corroborated by the statement of P.W. Muhammad Rafique who had soon after the occurrence, reached at the place of occurrence and saw the victim weeping. Statement of the complainant renders further corroboration thereto inasmuch as the latter under influence of the transaction had narrated the entire incident to him. Further, the prosecution version is also supported by the medical evidence, hence, the learned trial Judge having found that guilt of the appellant was fully brought home at the trial by the prosecution had convicted him and I see no reason as to why a different view may be taken.
11. However, since the appellant has undergone his sentence of imprisonment, in jail as well as on probation, therefore, he shall, on payment of the fine or undergoing the term of imprisonment in default thereof, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. His bail bonds are discharged.