' This jail appeal filed by Dewan Sadda is directed against the judgment dated 14.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, whereby after ,convicting the appellant under Section 376, P.P.C., he was sentenced to twenty years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs, 2,00,000/-, failing which to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. As per story narrated in the complaint Ex.PA made by PW3 Zahoor Hussain at about 9/10:00 p.m.
When his minor daughter Sumera Bibi aged about 6/7 years went outside the house to answer the call of nature, the appellant grasped her and raped the minor girl who was identified in the light of electric bulb. The appellant was arrested at the spot.
3. The police completed the investigations of the case and submitted final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. To the Court for trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution evidence was recorded as the accused did not plead guilty to the charge. PW-1 Muzammil Hussain TASI, PW-2 Nimra Andleeb, Women Medical Officer, PW-3 Zahoor Hussain, PW-4 Muhammad Asif, PW-5 Aftab Ahmad ASI, PW-6 Muhammad Sadiq Constable, PW-7 Hayat Bhatti SI and PW-8 Sumera Bibi, the victim of the case were examined as a prosecution evidence.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was confronted to the accused by recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he termed all the witnesses as related inter-se, Investigating Officer belonging to the complainant party and that on 16.1.2011 he went to the mobile shop to fetch mobile wherefrom he was abducted by Zahid Bhatti, Sajjad Bhatti and Allah Dewaya and kept him confined in the room and they committed sodomy with Mm and also snatched his mobile. They in order to save themselves, registered this false case. He did not opt to appear as witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, he opted to produce defence evidence consisting upon an attested copy of petition for registration of case Ex.DB, copy of order dated 16.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah Ex.DC.
6. After the conclusion of the evidene, the Court appreciated the facts of the case and convicted the appellant under Section 376, P.P.C. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of twenty years was imposed upon 'appellant by taking a lenient view that the appellant was a juvenile and first offender.
7. Parties heard. Record perused.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised sole argument that as per statement of PW-2, Women Medical Officer, she could not give her final opinion regarding commission of rape with the girl due to the fact that no DNA test report was received. This submission of the learned counsel is not much impressive for the reason that in the statement made by said PW it is clearly mentioned that the hymen of the minor girl was torn and there was fresh bleeding from the margin of torn hymen. This medical evidence sufficiently shows that victim was freshly raped. This medical report was further supported by PW-8 the victim who herself appeared in the Court and stated that the appellant is the person who had committed Zina with her. In the cross-examination made on her statement, she remained affirm to her stand that she was subjected to unlawful act by the appellant. The PW-3 and PW-4 eye-witnesses have also made statements in line with the prosecution version regarding identification of the appellant in the light of the bulb and that he was arrested at the spot when he attempted to flee away. The ocular account remained un-shattered thus inspires confidence. In order to constitute an offence under Section 376, P.P.C., penetration is sufficient. The medical evidence sufficiently proves penetration. The charge of rape framed against the convict in this manner, has been established by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt.
The learned trial Court after appreciating all the evidence-available on the record had drawn a right conclusion about the conviction of the appellant to which no exception can be taken.
9. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, it is found that the appellant at the time of making statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Was having the age of 16 years thus is a minor boy. Although the learned trial Court has considered this fact while sentencing him but the sentence given appears to be too harsh. Keeping in view his age and the expectancy of life, sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to 10 years. The sentence of fine is also reduced to the sum of Rs, 25,000/- as the fine imposed by the Court is much exorbitant and in default in the payment of fine, the appellant shall serve one month simple imprisonment.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand having no merits is dismissed. However, the quantum of sentence is reduced in the, manner mentioned above.