' The appellant was tried under section 376, P. P. C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who vide his order dated 31st August 1974, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging his conviction.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that he raped Mst. Saeeda, a girl of tender age on 25th November 1972, at about 12 p.m. In the sugarcane cultivation of Yousuf Turk in Deh Nukarji, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, and District Hyderabad. The report was lodged by the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix on the same day at about 13-15 hours in Police Station Tando Muhammad Khan, which is at a distance of 18 miles from the place of incident. The first information report was recorded by P. W. Rana Jangsher, A. S. I. Who repaired to the vardat and recorded the statements of the witnesses He secured blood-stained "shalwar" and a piece of cloth from Mst. Saeeda in the presence of P. Ws. Moti and Chibhar. These articles were sealed and a mashirnama mas prepared which was signed by these mashirs. He then sent the victim Mst. Saeeda to Medical Officer, Tando Muhammad Khan for medical examination and treatment. On 26th November 1972, he recorded the statements of P. Ws. Saeed Khan and Muhammad Khan. He then went to the scene of offence on the same day at about 8 a.m. Which was shown to him by P. W. Saeed Khan. It was situated in Deh Nukarji in the land of Yousuf Turk. There was sugarcane cultivation at the scene of offence. A mashirnama of the vardat was also prepared by him. On 28th November 1972, at 9 a.m. He arrested the appellant at the police station where he had surrendered himself in the presence of mashirs Moti and Chibhar. A mashirnama of his arrest was also prepared. The appellant was sent for medical examination and report to the Medical Officer at Tando Muhammad Khan. On 29th August 1972, at 3 p.m. The appellant volunteered to produce his loin cloth and led him in the presence of same mashirs to his house wherefrom he produced a loin-cloth which was lying inside the hedge of his house. The loin cloth had semen stains on it. A mashirnama of the loin cloth was prepared. He also got recorded statements of P. Ws. Saeed Khan, Muhammad Khan and Mst. Jannat by the learned Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Muhammad Khan under section 164, Cr. P. C. The sealed parcels of the clothes containing semen and blood stains were sent to the Chemical Analyser for his report.
3. Dr. Rana examined the victim Mst. Saeeda and according to his opinion she had been subjected to rape. He found the following injuries on her person :
(1) There was a tear in posterior angle of valve 2-1/2 x 2' x 1/4"x 1/6' with margin congested.
(2) There was tear along right side posteriorly in hymen, and corresponding mucous membrane of vagina 3/4' x 1/4' x 1/6' with wound bleeding.
(3) Hymen was torn at four places two mentioned as above and two small tears on left side each about 1/32' x 1/4 .
' He further testified that the age of the victim was about 11 years at the time of the commission of offence. He also examined the appellant and opined that he was capable of committing sexual intercourse.
4. In his defence the appellant has pleaded alibi. He has filed a written statement in which he has stated that on 24th November 1972, he had gone to Math to purchase bullocks. On 25th November 1972, at about 11 a.m. He purchased two bullocks from Natho to whom he had to pay a sum of Rs, 1500 out of which Rs, 900 were paid then and there while Rs, 600 were to be paid subsequently. He executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs, 600 with Natho on 25th November 1972. On 27th November 1972, he brought the bullocks to his village and came to know that the complainant and P. W. Saeed Khan in order to save Photo had filed a false case against him in the police station. As he was wanted by the police therefore he volunteered himself to the police station. He has stated that he and his brother had enmity with P. W. Saeed Khan who is brother-in-law of the complainant. According to him the offence was committed by Photo whom Saeed Khan was trying to shield.
5. The prosecution has furnished ocular testimony of P. W. Saeed Khan that Mst. Jannat, besides the evidence of the prosecutrix, she has stated that she had gone to cut the grass in the sugarcane cultivation of Yousuf Turk where the appellant reached and embraced her. He forcibly made her to lie down on the ground, put off her trousers and raped her. She raised cries which attracted her sister P. W. Mst. Jannat and Saeed Khan. Both of them saw the offence being committed. On P. W.
Saeed Khan's extending challenge the appellant ran away from the scene of offence. P. Ws. Jannat and Saeed Khan have corroborated the story narrated by. P. W. Mst. Saeeda. They have stated in their statements that on hearing the cries of P. W. Mst. Saeeda they reached the sugarcane cultivation of Yousuf Turk and found that the appellant was committing rape and P. W. Mst. Saeeda was crying. On P. W. Saeed Khan's challenging him he ran away from there. The complainant is husband of P. W. Mst. Jannat who is real sister of P. W. Mst. Saeeda. He was not present in the house at that time as he had gone to Bulri to buy medicines. When he returned the entire story was narrated to him by P. W. Mst. Jannat. He then went to the police station to lodge the report. The statement of the prosecutrix corroborated by the statements of P. Ws. Mst: Jannat and Saeed Khan is enough to bring home the guilt to the appellant. The Chemical Analyser's report also lends some support to the prosecution story. The Chemical Analyser has stated in his statement that the blood stains were found on the shalwar and stripped pool which had been secured from P. W. Mst.
Saeeda whereas semen marks were found on her dupatta which she was wearing at the time of commission of offence. The semen marks on other articles were found disintegrated because these articles were sent to him with some delay.
6. The theory of alibi introduced by the appellant does not carry any weight in face of the statements on uninterested eye-witnesses discussed above. The appellant has also referred to a suit having been filed against him for the recovery of money, the judgment of which has been produced by him in order to show that he had actually purchased the bullocks on the day of occurrence. He has examined D. W. Naboo in his defence who after consulting the .Revenue record stated that there was no sugarcane cultivation on the survey number in which the offence is said to have been committed. However these contradictions are of a minor nature. The survey number might have been given incorrectly by the complainant to the police. There is ample' evidence that there were semen and blood stains on the clothes which had been recovered from the appellant and the victim and that the appellant had been seen by two uninterested witnesses namely P. W.
Mst. Jannat and Saeed Khan while he was committing rape on Mst. Saeeda. Besides these statements there is the statement of the victim who has stated that she was subjected to rape.
There is absolutely no reason why the victim would falsely implicate the appellant in the offence.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant realised that he had to meet a difficult case and therefore mainly he confined his argument to the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel for the State also conceded that the punishment awarded to the appellant who was 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence was proportionately high. I agree .With the learned counsel for the appellant as far as the quentum of punishment is concerned.
8. For the reasons given above I dismiss the appeal but reduce the sentence to the punishment already undergone which is about four years. The appellant shall be released from the custody forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.