Through this criminal appeal under Section 410, Cr.P.C., appellant Muhammad Zohaib Shahid has challenged the vires of judgment dated 15.07.2019 pass ed by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court, Toba Tek Singh in case FIRNo. 677/18 dated 18.12.2018, in respect of offences under Sections 377 & 511, PPC, registered at Police Station, City Toba Tek Singh whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under: "Under Section 51 1 read with 377, PPC Simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 30,0001-, which if realized, shall be paid to the victim and in case of default, he shall be liable to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
He was held entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C.
2. The prosecution story unfolded in the crime report (Ex.P A/1) registered on the complaint (Ex.P A) of Mst. Saima Nasreen alleging that on 07.12.2018 at 06:00 p.m., her son Muhammad Tayyab aged 08-years (victim) was playing in the street when the appellant forcibly took him in his drawing room (baithak) and attempted to commit sodomy with him. She alongwith her husband Ajmal Naeem and witness Husnain Raza started search their son and on hearing his hue and cry, entered into the drawing room of the appellant, who was trying to commit Sodom with the victim by undressing him. On seeing, them the appellant succeeded to flee away .
3. Muhammad Anwar , SI (PW-6) conducte d investigation and arrested the appellan t on 26.12.2018 being already in police custody in case FIR No. 665/2018. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, got prepared report under Section 173, Cr .P.C.
4. At the commencement of the trial, learned trial Court had framed a charge against the appellant to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 07-witnesses. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. had denied and controverted all the allegation s of fact leveled against him, he neither opted to make statement under Section 340(2), Cr .P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence.
5. Learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial had convicted and sentenced the appellant supra vide impugned judgment dated 15.07.2019 Hence, this criminal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and has prayed for reduction of quantum of the appellant's sentence with the contention that the appellant was tried by the learned Judge Juvenile Court being under 18-years of age at the time of occurrence and he has served out 21/2 years of his substantive sentence excluding remissions as he was arrested in this case on 26.12.2018 and since then he is behind the bars.
7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that she has no objection if the appellant's conviction is maintained, however concedes that the quantum of sentence is always prerogative of the Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State and perused the record with their able assistance.
9. Mst. Saima Nasreen/complainant (PW-1) had put the law in motion while submitting an application for the registration of case (Ex.P A) stating therei n that on 07.12.2018 at about 06:00 p.m., the appellant forcibly took her son in his drawing room and attempt to commit sodomy with him by removing his clothes. She alongwith her husband Ajmal Naeem (PW-2) and Husnain Raza PW witnessed the occurrence. On seeing them, the accused succeeded to flee away . On their asking, victim Muhammad Tayyab told that the appellant had threatened that he would kill him, if he discloses the matter to his mother . Ajmal Naeem (PW-2) and victim Muhammad Tayyab (PW-3) supplemented the complainant and deposed almost the same story and reiterated what they had stated before the police in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The complainant was real mother and PW-2 was father of the victim boy and they absolutely had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. They made consistent statements before the learned trial Court regarding the mode of and manner of the occurrence and had categorically raised their accusing fingers towards none else but the appellant without any hesitation and doubt.
Nothing inconsistent or major discrepancy has been found in the deposition of both the eye-witnesses. The consistent and straight forwardness of statements of both the eye-witnesses had not only inspired confidence of the learned trial Court but also has impressed this Court. During cross-examination, the defence could not extract any favourable material from their mouth with regard to the time, place, mode and manner of the occurrence. There is nothing in rebuttal to discard the testim ony of the eye-witnesses without any cogent reason and no enmity has been brought on record by the defence for his false implication or substitution in this case, which is a rare phenomenon in such like cases.
10. In view of these facts and circumstanc es of the case, I have no legitimate exception to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court qua the conviction of the appellant but so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I have observed that the appellant was tried by the learned Juvenile Court established under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 being under 18-years of age, he was arrested in this case on 26.12.2018, and since then he is behind the bars for a continuous period of abou t 2 1/2 years and he is about to serve out his total sentence, which has served the very purpose of his prosecut ion and also meets the ends of justice. So, I deem it appropriate to main tain conviction of the appellant with the modification of his imprisonment to the sentence already undergone.
11. In view of what has been discusse d above, the appeal in hand is withou t any force, the same stands dismissed and the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court is maintained, however his sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone including the sentence to be served out in lieu of default in the payment of fine.