Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Akbar and Aurangzeb were tried under section 377, P.P.C. By the learned Magistrate. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to three years' R.I. Vide judgment, dated 25-7-1983. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, maintained the conviction of the accused, but reduced their sentence to two years' R.I. Each. Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Akbar have not filed any revision, and only Aurangzeb has filed the present revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 15-10-1982, Naveed Ahmad P.W.1 (the victim) aged about 12 years, accompanied by Muhammad Azam accused went to Rukan High School, to witness a Kabaddi Match. Muhammad Akbar is also alleged to have accompanied them. After the match was over at about 4-00 p.m. Aurangzeb petitioner also joined them. It is alleged that during the night the accused and the victim stayed in the house of the petitioner. At mid-night Muhammad Azam accused untied the Shalwar- of Naveed Ahmad P.W. And committed sodomy with him.
Thereafter, the petitioner and Muhammad Akbar accused committed sodomy with him turn by turn. Thereafter the accused ran away.
Naveed Ahmad P.W. On account of fear did not come to the village and instead went to the village of his uncle. Thereafter he returned to his village on 22-10-1980 and the report was lodged on 23- 10-1980.
3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined Naveed Ahmad P.W.1, the victim, his father Ali Ahmad P.W.2, Muhammad Fazil A.S.I., the Investigating Officer, Ghulam Rasul Constable P.W.4 and Dr. Nazir Ahmad P.W.5.
4. Naveed Ahmad P.W.1 supported the prosecution case in its entirety. His statement was confirmed by his father Ali Ahmad P.W.2,, which is further fortified by the evidence of Dr. Nazir Ahmad, who medically examined the victim.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties: Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the F.I.R. In this case was lodged after considerable delay' and there is no corroboration of the version given by the victim, hence the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record and are liable to be set aside on this score.
6. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment under revision on the same grounds, which weighed with the lower Courts.
7. I have gone through the record carefully and 1 find that the Courts below after proper appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Has been satisfactorily explained. The victim has given very plausible explanation of delay that out of fear he went to the house of Ills uncle and thereafter when his father took him from there, then he lodged the F.I.R. The version,, given by the victim is supported by the medical evidence, because Dr. Nazir Ahmad P.W.5 opined that the boy was subjected to sodomy; hence in the absence of any enmity, there is no justification to disbelieve the story put forth by the victim. The Courts below on proper appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the petitioner. Even the co-accused of the petitioner did not file any revision, meaning thereby that they were satisfied with the order of the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any gross misreading of evidence, which could have resulted into miscarriage of justice. There is thus no force in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bond and be lodged to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence.