Allah Diwaya petitioner was convicted by a Magistrate 1st Class at Dora Ghazi Khan on the 29th of August 1974 under section 377, P. P. C. And sentenced to two years' R. I. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed on 19-11-74. Hence this revision petition.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he had subjected Muhammad Hanif P. W. a boy of about 7 to 9 years of age, to his unnatural lust. In order to establish this charge, the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses in addition to Muhammad Hanif P. W and also a doctor who had medically examined the petitioner as well as the victim of the alleged crime. The doctor's testimony is inconclusive. It is clear there from that penetration had not taken place. The doctor was not sure even of partial penetration. There was no sign of injury on the body of the boy. There is no report of any Chemical Analyst on record either to indicate that the petitioner had discharged or the boy had bled. The only indication of assault was that the anus of the boy was red and congested. But in the opinion of the doctor this could also be the result of constipation. The medical evidence has thus no corroborative value.
3. As to the three eye-witnesses, the learned Courts below have both disbelieved the testimony of Nabi Bakhah complainant who is a cousin of the father of the alleged victim and Muhammad Iqbal P. W. Who is a cousin of the victim himself. In fact, the latter denied having witnessed the incident and stated that he had been informed of the offence 10 or 12 days after it had been committed.
Thus we are left only with the testimony of Muhammad Hanif P. W. Himself who, according to the doctor, is only 7 years of age while according to the trial Court's assessment is 9 or 10 years old. It is true that he has directly charged the petitioner with the crime. But besides the fact that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated, testimony of a child witness, his statement suffers from inherent contradictions. It also stands contra--dicted by the depositions of Nabi Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal witnesses.
4. I am, therefore, of the view that the case against the petitioner is not free from reasonable doubt.
I accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner and acquit him. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.