Appellant Muhammad Ali has challenged his convictions and sentences awarded to & him by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court, Layyah vide judgment dated 20.10.2017 in case FIR No. 151 dated 16.06.2015 registered under Section 364-A/365, PPC at Police Station Kot Sultan, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under; i Under Section 364-A, PPC awarded imprisonment for life. ii Under Section 376, PPC awarded rigorous imprisonment for twent y five years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. He was also ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the victim and in case of default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently and benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.06 .2015 at about 12:00 noon, the Complainant Muhammad Nadeem Ashraf was present in his house, when he heard a sound of cry from the citrus orchard of Muhammad Yaseen, on which he rushed towards there and found Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Shehbaz along with other people present there and all of them encircled a person wear ing pent shirt whereas his daughter , namely , Muneeba Nadeem, 5, was weeping while standing under citrus plant and her Shalwar had been removed. She was student of Prep class. The above said PWs told him that they heard the sound of crying of his daughter , when they were passing along the metalled road and they went inside the orchard and found the above said perso n attempting to commit Zina Bil Jabar with his daughter . Muneeba Nadee m after removing her Shalwar and his pent, who after having seen them, left his daughter . The accused tried to escape but was apprehended by the PWs and other people present there and on interrogation, he disclosed his name as Muhammad Ali s/o Ghulam Fareed, hence, this case.
3. After registration of formal FIR, the matter was investigated and report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court while declaring the appellant as guilty . Thereafter , formal charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as eleven witnesses and after producing certain documents closed its evidence. Ocular account was furnished by the complainant Muhammad Nadeem Ashraf who appeared as PW-7 and eye-witn ess Abdul Hameed appeared as PW-8. Muneeba Nadeem victim of the case appeared as PW-9. Medical evidence was furnished by PW-11 lady Dr. Sahar Farooqi, WMO, who medically examined the victim Muneeba Nadeem. Dr. Javed Iqbal Bhutta and Dr. Bilal Khalid M.O. also appeared as PW-4 and PW-6, they have medically examined the appellant/accused. Sajjad Hussain ASI, who conducted investigation of the case appeared as PW-10. The remaining witnesses were of formal in nature and prosecution after producing certain documents closed its evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the allegations leveled against him by the prosecution. He neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in his defence. After evaluating prosecution evidence available on record, learned trial Court found the prosecution version correct beyond any shadow of doubt, which resulted into conviction and sentence of the appellant in the afore stated terms.
4. After arguing the appeal at some length, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he would not challenge the conviction of the appellant, if the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court be reduced to the period which he has already undergone as the appellant is languishing in jail for the last about more than six years. However , learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vigorously controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that since the prosecution has ably proved its case up to the hilt, thus, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant in accordance with law .
5. I have heard arguments and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Case of the prosecution, was culminated through the above said F:13 registered at the instance of complainant, Muhammad Nadeem .Uhraf, father of the victim Muneeba Nadeem, who while narrating the incident to the police and also before the learned trial Court as PW-7 deposed that on 16.06.2015 at about 12:00 p.m. (noon), the appellant was apprehended by the PWs, who attracted at the spot on 1_,ie and cry of victim Muneeba Nadeem, 5, and noted that the victim was being sexu ally molested by the appellant. As per allegation of the prosecution, when the minor daughter of the complainant was coming back from her school, the appellant forcibly took her in nearby orchard of citrus and sexually assaulted. People gathered at the spot, apprehended the 1ppellant and handed him over to the police. The other eye-witness Abdul. Hameed also deposed before the learned trial Court, while appearing as PW-8, almost in a similar manner . The star witness in this case is the victim Muneeba Nadeem), who herself appeared before the learned trial Court as PW-9. Before recording her testimony , the learned trial Court had put certain questions and found that she was quite confident. She had given the answers of those questions quite rationally , so, the learned trial Court proceeded to record her statement, who (PW -9) deposed as under: "Stated that in the year 2016 I was coming from school and proceeding towards my house. When I reached near the orchard, the accused present in the Court committed "badtameezi" with me. He abducted me from the road and took me in the orchard. It was 12:00 noon. In those days I was in class prep. The accused not only put off my nicker but also put off his nicker . I felt pain and blood oozed out. I raised hue and cry. My - father and my uncles came there. They apprehended the accus ed who raised lalkora that he shot a fire. The police reached at spot and I got recorded my statement before police. I was medically examined by WMO."
These allegations of the victim were substantiated by the Medical Officer Dr. Sahar Farooqi WMO, who medically examined her. She while appearing before the learned trial Court as PW-11 deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 16.06.2015, she had medically examined the victim Muneeba Nadeem, who was well oriented in time, place and person. Whatsoever she observed during medical examination of the victim, deposed by her as PW-11 before the learned trial Court as under: "On vaginal examination, hymen was ruptured, vagina can admit little finger , six vaginal swabs were taken. No other injury was present on thigh or other private parts. 2 cc of blood sample was taken."
While answering to a question put to her (PW-11) by the learned defence counsel during the course of cross- examination. she deposed as under: "It is correct that if hymen was ruptured "within 8 to 10 hours of victim aged about 5/6 years then it is necessary blood was present in vaginal canal. V oluntarily , stated that hymen ruptured due to penetration."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress on the point that the factum of rape could not be proved by the medical evidence as the Medical Officer did not note any blood in and around the vagina of the victim. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I observed that this objection of the learned counsel, does not carry any weight as admittedly the victim was medically examined by the above said lady doctor after lapse of 10 hours and 35 minutes. Even otherwise, the lady doctor had deposed in her deposition in clear terms that the victim was sexually assaulted. Meaning thereby , the medical evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution.
8. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the testimonies of two eye-witnesses Muhammad Nadeem Ashraf (father of the victim/PW -7) and Abdul Hameed (PW-8) have been discarded by the learned trial Court is concerned, I have observed that if the testimonies of these two PWs are not taken into consideration even then the prosecution has ably proved its case as the star witness of the case i.e. Muneeba Nadeem (victim) herself had put accusing finger towards the present appellant, not only during the course of investigation but also before the learned trial Court.
9. Another important aspect of the case is that the appellant was caught red-hande d and handed him over to police by the people of the locality from the place of occurrence, thus, this factum rules out any doubt qua his involvement in the alleged crime. So, in the light of supra discussion, I found that the prosecution is equipped with sufficient material/evidence against the appellant, on the basis of which, it has successfully brought home his guilt and proved its case beyond any "reasonable shadow of doubt".
10. As far as the quantum of sentence, awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court and the argument of his counsel, for its reduction are concerned, I have observed that the appellant at the time of alleged incident was aged about 14 years and this factum has also not been denied by the learned Law Officer and learned counsel for the complainant. Sections 364-A & 376, PPC provide maximum punishment of life imprisonment and twenty five years imprisonment respectively , whereas minimum sentence provided under Section 364-A, PPC is seven years and under Section 376, PPC is ten years, so keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining convictions awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court under both the above said provisions of law, his sentences are reduced to 10 years imprisonment in each offence. The sentences of fine, compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and imprisonment in default thereof, shall remain intact. However , both the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. is also extended to the appellant.
11. With the above modification in sentences of the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed .
Appeal dismissed.