A case under section 377, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Chiniot. At 12-30 p.m. On 13-2-1979, against Razzaq son of Ranjha Khan, for an offence said to have taken place at his Dera in Majo Chak, on the previous evening, at a distance of five miles from the police station. The case was registered on the application submitted by Ghulam Abbas victim (aged 13 years. He had given his age at the trial on 3-2-1981, as 15 years). ""
According to F.I.R., Razzaq had committed sodomy with Ghulam Abbas. After threatening him with a knife. Razzaq was arrested. He was sent to jail. However, after completion of necessary investigation, the police got him discharged, as the Investigating Officer had reached the conclusion that he had not committed any offence.
2. Muhammad Khan, father of Ghulam Abbas victim, filed a complaint against Razzaq on 28-5- 1979, in which he was summoned by the Magistrate to face trial, under section 377, P.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate, after recording statements of 4 P.Ws. Convicted Razzaq under section 377, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For one year, plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof to suffer three months' R.I.
3. The appeal,, filed by the convict was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide order, dated 8-8-1982.
4. The instant petition has been filed by the convict, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the judgments of the lower Courts by way of exercise of revisional powers.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has not turned up in spite of repeated calls, although his name is printed in the cause list. It is 12-10 p.m. There is no request for adjournment either. The matters, in which counsel for the parties are not available, are normally adjourned. However, since prayer has been made in the petition for exercise of revisional powers, which can be exercised suo motu, I have decided to proceed with the matter with the assistance of the counsel for the State. Moreover, a period of 9 years has already passed since the filing of the petition.
6. Neither Muhammad Afzal (P.W.1), real brother of the victim, nor Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Saeed (P.W.2), neither Muhammad Khan (P.W.4), father of the victim, claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. Although P.W.1 claimed that when he had reached the spot, his' brother had told him that petitioner had committed unnatural act with him, but he did not state that Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Saeed P.VV was also there, Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Saeed while appearing as P.W.2, did not state anything about the victim having said anything about unnatural act having been committed with him. He, however, stated that some women had also arrived there.
The statement of Ghulam Abbas victim,, who appeared as P.W.3 makes the claim of Muhammad Afzal further doubtful. According to him Ghulam Abbas son of Saeed P.W. Had arrived at the spot prior to Muhammad Afzal, his brother. If the victim had narrated the incident charging the petitioner to Afzal, then P.W.2 also would have heard the same?
The claim made by P.W. Muhammad Khan, father of the victim,, that he had been told about the occurrence by his son, when he had reached the spot, does not find corroboration from the statement of any other P.W. In fact, neither j P.W.1 nor P.W.2 neither P.W.3 had stated about Muhammad Khan having reached the spot. The victim had nowhere stated that he had narrated the occurrence to his father.
7. The prosecution evidence produced at the trial suffers from another infirmity also. In that according to F.I.R. Muhammad Afzal and Ghulam Abbas (P.W.2) were eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It has also come on record that Ghulam Abbas (P.W.2) and the victim (named also as Ghulam Abbas) did not C know each other before the occurrence. It is also stated that the said Ghulam Abbas P.W. Did not know the name of Razzaq petitioner. There is no clarification as to how P.W. Ghulam Abbas came to know the names of the victim and the accused.
These facts coupled with the fact of the petitioner having been got discharged during investigation by the police, makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
8. After having carefully applied my f mind, I am convinced that the, prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is acquitted. He is on bail. The sureties shall stand discharged.