The applicant above-named being aggrieved by judgment dated 22nd April, 1980 of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1978, by which he dismissed the said appeal and upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant from 11 years to one year and upheld judgment dated 21st November, 1978 of the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Tando Muhammad Khan otherwise by which applicant was convicted under section 342, P.
P. C. 377, P. P. C. Read with section 311, P. -P. C. And sentenced to suffer R. I. For 3 months under section 342, P: P. C. And R. I. For 11 years and a fine of Rs. 500 under section 377, P. P. C.. Read with section 511, P. P. C. And in default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I. For 6 months, has preferred the above petition on the following facts and grounds.
2. On 10th June, 1976 young by Muhammad Yousif aged 10 years had gone to graze the cattle of Muhammad Kapri, near Sherki Minor in the south of P. S. Bulri Shah Karim at distance of two miles.
At 3-00 p. m. Father of by Muhammad Yousif named Imam Bux, along--with P. W. Achar went to cut straws for their huts, by side of Shorki minor, in Deh Behrampur and when they reached in the cultivated lands of Kamal Asghar, they heard the cries of P. W. Muhammad Yousif from the sur bushes and went running there. They saw that the hands of P. W. Muhammad Yousif were tied from behind with towel and was lying downward upon the ground and his trousers were off. They saw that the trouser of applicant Meehal Kapri was also off and he was committing sodomy upon young by. The cries further attracted P. W. Hashim Rind, as such applicant Meehal taking away his trouser ran into jungle towards North. P. W. Imam Bux untied the hands of by Yousif, who on enquiry told him, that while he was present with cattle, applicant Meehal Kapri came there and forcibly tied his hands with towel and after putting off the trouser started committing sodomy upon him. He further told that applicant Meehal penetrated the penis. P. W. Imam Bux then took his son to Rais Khan Muhammad Rind, who suggested him to report to Police. Imam Bux then lodged the report with P. S. Bulri Shah Karim at 5-30 p. m. On same day, which was registered by A. S. I. Miandad. He gave letter to medical officer for medical examination of victim. Dr. Muhammad Siddique on same day, at 11-45 p. m. Examined the by and found bruising round about annul margin and slight abrasion on the posterior left to the middle line. He found no semen, no blood, no face matter, no gnorrheal discharge, no signs of struggle around the anus or body of the by.
3. The investigation was conducted by A. S. I. Miandad, who examined the clothes of by Muhammad Yousif in presence of Mashirs Haji and Nasrullah. He visited the wardat on same day, in presence of Mashirs Khan Muhammad and Masu, shown by complainant Imam Bux and secured the towel used by applicant produced by the complainant in presence of same Mashirs. He recorded the statement of P. W. Muhammad Yousif, Muhammad Hashim and Muhammad Achar and received the medical certificate on 13th May 1977. On 20th June 1976 he handed over the case papers to S. H. O. Applicant got bail before arrest from Court of Session, as such the challan was put up in the manner stated above.
4. Applicant pleaded not guilty to formal charge under section 342/ 377, P. P. C. And claimed trial, therefore, prosecution examined P. W. Imam Bux as Exh. 4, Muhammad Hashim as Exh. 5, Achar as Exh.
6. Muhammad Yousif as Exh. 7, Dr. Muhammad. Siddique as Exh. 8, Miandad as Exh. 10, Masoo Khan as Exh. 11, whereas applicant examined D. W. Ghazi as Exh. 13.
5. Applicant in his statement denied, that he wrongfully confined and committed carnal intercourse with Muhammad Yousif; he denied that P. Ws. Were attracted and stated that the P. Ws.
Have deposed against him due to land dispute with his relative Dino and Lakhano. He stated further, that he has been implicated falsely due to existing enmity with Dino and Lakhano.
6. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the applicant, as hereinbefore; mentioned, vide impugned judgment dated 21st November, 1978, against which applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1978, which was also dismissed by impugned judgment dated 22nd April; 1980 of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and consequently the applicant has filed the above petition, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of petition.
7. The learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the petition submitted as under : -
(a) That there was no independent evidence of alleged sexual act except that of the victim and his father and as such in view of the enmity of the victim's relatives over land with the applicant, their evidence required independent corroboration which was not avail--able and consequently the conviction and sentences awarded to the applicant cannot legally be maintained in support of this conten--tion, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon case reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 1.
(b) That besides D. W. Muhammad Hashim, P. W. Ghazi has also corroborated the statement of the applicant in respect of the enmity between the applicant and the relatives of the victim.
(c) That in the alternative the sentences awarded to the applicant, on account of length of trial is rather harsh and as such in the interest of justice, the same may be reduced.
8. The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that he fully supports the impugned judgments for the reasons given in the said judgments, as in his opinion the prosecution has, estab--lished its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the applicant and the alleged enmity has not been established.
9. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court as well as through judgments and the cases relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant.
10. Prosecution case rests upon the statements of P. Ws. Muhammad Yousuf (victim by) and his father Imam Bux, as well as on the statement of P. W. Dr. Muhammad Siddique and P. W. Achar as corroborative piece of evidence. I have carefully gone through their statements and find, that these statements of P. Ws. Were not at all shaken in their cross-examinations. No doubt there was delay in lodging of F. I R., which has been explained and I see no reason to reject the said explanation. As far as alleged enmity with the applicant is concerned, no doubt P. W. Muhammad Hashim and D.
W. Ghazi have supported the person of the A applicant in this connection to some extent and as such evidence of P. Ws. Muhammad Yousuf and his father P. W. Imam Bux required inde--pendent corroboration, which in my opinion is available on record, on account of statements of P. W. Dr. Muhammad Siddiq and P. W. Achar and such case reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 1, which is based on different facts, does not apply to present case at all. I find, that both the learned lower Courts have, for cogent reasons come to the conclusions and findings mentioned in both the impugned judgments and as such I see no reason to disagree with the same on merits.
11. The only question which requires consideration is about the sentences awarded to the applicant.
In this connection the (earned Advocate for the applicant submitted; that as the incident is of 1976 and & applicant has remained in custody for little more than two months and on account Of protracted trial, the same be reduced to the period already undergone by him. I find no force in this contention, as in my opinion, the sentences awarded to the applicant are very lenient, specially as the same was reduced by the learned appellate Court, in respect of conviction under section 377/511, P. P. C. From 11 years to one year only and fine of Rs. 500 was maintained.
12. Therefore; I find no merits in the above-petition, which is conse--quently dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bail able warrants for arrest of the applicant and on his arrest to remand him to judicial custody to serve out the remaining sentences.
Revision declared.