The two petitioners Mohammad Hanif son of Abdullah Pathan, and Mohammad Juman son of Buxan Patoli were found guilty by the Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad, under section 377, P. P.
C. and sentenced to undergo R. 1. for two years each, and also to pay fine of Rs. 100.00, or in default to undergo R. I. for three months more. The appeals of the convicts to the Sessions Court, Hyderabad, were dismissed, and they have approached this Court separately, by these two Revision Applications, which are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts according to the prosecution story, briefly stated, are that on 18-4-1968, Maqsood Ahmed, a young boy aged 11 years, residing at Matli came to Tando Mohammad Khan to take medicine from the Eye Specialist, Dr. Naseem, for his grand-mother whose eyes were operated upon a month ago. His uncle Siraj Shaikh, P. W. 2, resided at Tando Mohammad Khan, and he went to his house, and at about 5 p. m. went to the doctor for medicine. The doctor told him that he could not prescribe any medicine without seeing the patient. The boy, therefore, went to the Railway Station to take the train scheduled to leave at 7-00 a.m. and purchased a ticket for Matli.
After the train came, he got into a ladies compartment. T?oon thereafter, two persons approached him and asked him to get down from the compartment as he had run away from his parent's house and was to be handed over to the police. The boy explained that their assertion was not true and they could inquire from his uncle who resided in Tando Mohammad Khan. They asked him to follow and took him to the house of Mohammad Juman appellant. What transpired inside the house may be stated in the words of the victim at the trial :-- "Juma searched my person and made me naked. He took hold of my ticket also. Then Juma gagged my mouth with kerchief and made me to lie down on a cot with my face down. He held me by the arms, while black man, put his penis in my anus, It pained me, and I was weeping, when they threatened me not to weep. After 3-4 minutes I felt watery substance pouring in the anus. Then black man got up and held me by my arms and the other man Juma repeated the same. I was feeling pain and weeping and he also spent himself inside the anus as I felt it. Then the two accused cleaned their penis and my anus with a piece of cloth lying there. Then I dressed myself, and they threatened me not to disclose this to any body. They would kill me. Then they opened the door of the house, and said that they were taking me to the Bus which was going to Matli. When the door opened, I saw 2 persons coming who asked me as to why I was weeping. The 2 accused then slipped away."
These two persons who met the victim were Chhel Mohammad and Alamgir and they took the boy to the adjacent house and called an old man, who subsequently transpired to be the father of accused Juman. They related the incident to him upon which he requested them not to make a report. Then the two persons took the boy to his uncle Siraj Shaikh and related the incident to him.
On being given these facts Siraj Shaikh took his nephew to the police station, where the boy lodged the F. I. R. Exh. 1-A, at 11-30 p.m. on the same day, with S. H. O. Ghazanfar Hussain, Tando Mohammad Khan.
3. The S. H. O. secured the Shalwar and the shirt of the victim under mushirnama Exh. 7-B, and sent him for medical examination and treatment to Tando Mohammad Khan Dispensary. Dr. Abdul Majid noticed two tears, 'one in the anterior wall and another in the posterior wall of the anus of the victim. The wounds appeared fresh and the blood was oozing out. In the doctor's opinion sodomy had been committed on the boy.
4. On the return of the victim from the hospital, the S. H. O. took him to the Wardat, which was inside the otaq of Juman accused, adjacent to the house. Two pieces of cloth were secured from there under mashirnama (Exh. 7/A). According to the Chemical Examiner's Report Exh. 10/A one was stained with semen. Accused Mohammad Hanif was arrested in Tando Mohammad Khan on the pointation of the victim himself, and in this connection the S. H. O. prepared a mashirnama Exh. 5-A. Accused Juman was arrested on the next day.
5. At the trial firstly to be examined was the victim boy Maqsood Ahmed P, W.
1. He is the resident of Matli and tbe purpose of his visit to Tando Mohammad Khan on the day of occurrence was to obtain for his grand-mother some medicines from the Eye Specialist, Dr. Naseem. He had also gone to him on earlier occasions. He stated that before taking medicine from the doctor, he went to his uncle's house and it was about 5-00 or 5-30 p.m. that he went to Dr. Naseem. The doctor, however, told him to bring his grandmother as he would see her first before prescribing the medicine. According to Maqsood Ahmed, he then went to his uncle and told him that he was going back to his own village. Accordingly he went to the Railway Station, Tando Mohammad Khan, to catch the train which was scheduled at 7-00 p.m. Soon after he took a seat in the ladies compartment, two persons came to him and one of them demanded ticket from him. Maqsood Ahmed went on to say that other man had a cycle and he was short-statured, while the person who approached him first was black. Both of them then asked him to follow, and brought him to a house near the mosque.
What happened there had already been stated earlier.
The victim boy was fully supported by Chhel Mohammad P. W. 3 who escorted him immediately after the occurrence. He confirmed that Maqsood Ahmed was weeping and told him what had happened. Chhel Mohammad went on to say that he and Alamgir then called the father of Juman accused and informed him of the incident but he requested them not to make a report.
Accordingly they took him to bis uncle's house. It may be said that Chhel Mohammad appears to be a totally independent person and nothing was suggested to him in the cross-examination from which it can be said that he had any grudge to falsely implicate the applicants.
6. P. W. Siraj Shaikh, the uncle of the victim also supported the prosecution case in all respects. He had gone to Faizul Hassan P. W. 7, the Chairman of the Union Committee No. 2, Tando Muhammad Khan, to inform him what had happened to his nephew, and it was on his advice that he went to the Police Station. P. W. Faizul Hassan also supported this version.
7. The defence plea taken by the petitioners was of total denial of the prosecution case. The petitioner Mohammad Hanif's case further was that he had gone to Hyderabad on the day of occurrence and was not even present in Tando Mohammad Khan. Similarly Juman also stated that he had also gone to Hyderabad on the day of the incident. Both of them examined as many as nine witnesses namely; Allauddin, Mohammad Qassim, Mohammad Bux, Abdul Ghafoor, Abu Baker, Lakhano, Mohammad Yakoob, Mohammad Shafi and Roop Chand.
8. Both the Courts below rejected the defence pleas of the petitioners and accepted the version given by Maqsood Ali, the victim boy, as in their opinion it was satisfactorily corroborated by the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, including the medical evidence. It may be said that the pleas of alibi can hardly be said to have been proved conclusively.
These were summed up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in these words:-- "The defence of Mohd. Hanif is that he was also out of Tando Mohd. Khan. He had taken leave from the Fauji Sugar Mills on 18-4-68 and had gone to Hyderabad to his wife and had returned on 19-4- 68 to Tando Mohd. Khan and was arrested. He was demanded Rs. 500 which he could not pay to the police. He was, therefore, involved. I have examined his statement and his plea of alibi. He has not produced the original application made to the Fauji Sugar Mills for his leave. His D. W. Mohd.
Shah is his neighbour and his evidence that accused Hanif had gone to Hyderabad on 17th and had returned on 19th. Witness Mohd. Hanif is not believable and his evidence was correctly rejected by the lower Court. The plea of Mohd. Hanif is, therefore, not acceptable and the learned lower Court has arrived at a correct decision in this respect also. The lower Court has explained the confusion of dates in respect of the production of the station diary. The copy of the station diary does not show that accused Hanif was arrested on 20-4-68. Similarly, the other D. Ws. are not believed by the learned lower Court and I feel that they are correctly not believed."
9. After going through the record of the case, I feel no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, regarding the defence pleas of alibi. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, it would be seen that neither the victim nor his uncle Siraj Shaikh even knew any of the petitioners before the occurrence. Chhel Mohammad P. W. 3 is also an independent witness and there is no reason why he should have falsely involved the petitioners.
The story narrated by the victim boy was fully corroborated by the circumstantial evidence including the medical evidence. There can be no doubt whatever that he was the victim of sodomy. He must have surely seen closely the person or persons responsible for that action. No doubt there were slight variations in his statement, but these are inconsequential and would be natural for any witness who is to depose in a Court of law sometime after the occurrence. This would be more true in a case of a young boy like Maqsood Ahmad, aged 11 years. The perusal of the statement given by him, on the contrary, indicates that he well-stood the detailed cross- examinations of two defence counsel and inspires confidence that what he stated was true.
10. There is, therefore, no justification whatever for interference in this Revision Application, lt is accordingly dismissed.
Revision not allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.