'SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.--- This appeal. Is directed against judgment, dated 16-7-1996, by Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, District Kasur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting the appellant under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, had held him guilty of having committed offence under section 377, P.P.C.
Convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life plus to pay a fine of Rs,50,000, in default whereof to undergo R.I. For two years.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 28-9-1994 at 5-00 p.m. In a sugarcane field in the area of village Jamshair Kalan at a distance of 6 K.M. From Police Station Kanganpur.
'F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Was recorded at Police Station, Kanganpur by Nazir. Ahmad, M.H.C., P.W.1 on 28-9-1994 at 10-5 p.m. On receipt of statement Exh.P.A./1 made by Muhammad Yousaf, P.W.3 before Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. P.W.8'on the same day at 09-45 p.m. Near Grid Station, Kanganpur.
' According to F.I.R. Muhammad Yousaf, complainant was away from his house on 28-9-1994 in connection with some business. He returned home at 6-00 p.m. Muhammad Imran, his son aged 14 years, told him that Muhammad Ali (appellant herein) had taken him to his tubewell. He further told him that while returning from there when they reached near the sugarcane field Muhammad Ali caught him forcibly and after removing his Shalwar took him to the field of sugarcane and started committing sodomy with him. He also told him that hearing his cries, Kamran and Muhammad Younas, P.Ws. Arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. He informed the complainant that Muhammad Ali had run away on seeing the P.Ws. Reaching the spot.
3. Muhammad Siddique, after dispatching statement Exh.P.A./1, to the police station for registration of case, visited the spot and prepared site plan Exh.P.F. He recorded statements of the witnesses and got Muhammad Imran medically examined. Muhammad Ali was arrested by him on 5-10- 1994. After getting the medically examined and after completing the investigation, he submitted challan to Court.
4. Statements of eight P.Ws, were recorded at the trial.
' Muhammad Yousaf. Complainant while appearing as P.W.3 reported the facts given by him in the F.I.R. During cross-examination he admitted that Younas, P.W. Was his brother while Kamran, P.W.
Was his brother-in-law.. He admitted that Afzal Dogar was a cousin of Sardar Ashiq Dogar, M.N.A.
He gave out that his relations with the M.N.A., were neither good nor bad. He stated that accused party is also voter of Sardar Ashiq Dogar. He denied the suggestion that no such occurrence had taken place and that he had made a false statement.
5. Muhammad Younas, P.W.4 stated that about 13 months ago while coming from the fields towards the village alongwith Kamran, that he heard cries coming from sugarcane field and that when they had rushed to the field, they had seen Muhammad Ali committing carnal intercourse with the victim of this case. During cross-examination he explained that they had gone to the fields to fetch fodder. He gave out that Imran, victim, had some wounds on his cheek as well as On his back. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement.
6. Kamran, P.W.6 by and large corroborated the statement made by Muhammad Younas, P.W.4.
Like P.W.4 and P.W.3 he also denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement and that no such occurrence had taken place.
7. Sardar Muhammad Afzal. P.W.5, stated that about 13-1/2 months ago Muhammad Yousaf, P.W.
Had come to his Dera at 7/8 p.m. And informed him that his son Imran had been subjected to sodomy by Muhammad Ali in a sugarcane field. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he belonged to P.P.P. He also denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement due to party faction:
8. Dr. Nasim Rafi, Medical Officer who had medically examined Imran aged 14 years on 28-9-1994 appeared as P.W.7. He stated that he had removed swabs from inside the anus as well as from outside the anus. He gave out that he had also taken a stained piece of Shalwar. While giving the details of the medical examination done by him, he also stated that on receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner, that swa bs were stained with semen, he had opined that examinee had been subjected to sodomy: ' The same witness had medically examined Muhammad Ali qua potency and declared that he was fit to perform sexual intercourse. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had prepared a false report at the instance of the police.
9. Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. Who had recorded statement Exh.P.A. Of Muhammad Yousaf, P.W.3, sent the same to police station for registration of case, visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statements of the P.Ws., got the victim medically examined, arrested Muhammad Ali, appellant, got him medically examined qua potency and had submitted challan to Court after completion of necessary investigation appeared as P.W.8 and deposed those facts on oath. During cross-examination, he stated that it had not come on record during investigation that accused party belonged to Sardar Muhammad Ashiq Dogar, M.N.A.'s party. He admitted that Afzal Dogar had accompanied the complainant to the police station. While admitting that investigation was also done by D.S.P., he expressed ignorance whether some persons had appeared before the D.S.P.
10. Muhammad Imran, victim of this case was not examined at the trial as he had died a natural death prior to that.
' Statements of remaining witnesses are more or less of a formal nature.
' Positive report Exh.P.B. Received from the Office of the Chemical Examiner was also tendered in evidence.
11. Appellant during statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. While answering question "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you?, he stated as follows:- "On account of enmity, this case was registered against me. During the course of the investigation, the D.S.P., Chunian who investigated this case found the case doubtful. I produced the copy of the bail order, dated 11-1-1995 wherein it was mentioned by this Honourable Court that vide Zimini No,15-A, dated 10-6-1994 the case was found to be doubtful by the D.S.P. And it was on the basis of this Zimini that I was allowed the bail. A number of respectable persons had appeared before the D.S.P. In support of my plea of innocence."
' He produced in defence Exh.D.B., certified copy of the bail order. He neither produced any defence nor chose to make statement under section 340(2), Cr. P.C .
12. Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the case for a while decided not to challenge the conviction of the appellant. However, he prayed for reduction in the sentence of imprisonment as well as in the sentence of fine. In that regard, he also relied on some judgments of Federal Shariat Court, wherein sentences of imprisonment awarded for conviction under section 377, P.P.C.
Were reduced to different terms.
Learned counsel for the State defended the judgment of the trial Court. However, he stated that sentence of imprisonment should be not reduced to less than seven years' R.I.
13. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant have not challenged the conviction, we are even, otherwise convinced that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadows of doubt, is that, what weight with us, were the facts that unlike usual practice occurrence in this case was reported promptly. No effort was made to rope in innocent persons. Although P.Ws. Were cross-examined at length but no question was put to P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 that they had any direct animosity or differences with the accused or his family. All that was suggested to them, was that they (P.Ws.) belonged to the party of sitting M.N.A.
While the accused party belonged to Muslim League which fact was outrightly rejected by each one of the witnesses. Nothing was brought on record to consider that the P.Ws. Who deposed ocular account were not respectable persons and were prone to tell lie. The medical evidence also lends full support to the ocular account.
14. In the circumstances, conviction of the appellant under section 377, P.P.C. Is maintained.
However, considering the age of the appellant which at the time of the occurrence was slightly less than 17 years and the fact that already sufficient period has passed since the occurrence had taken place, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to a sentence of R.I. For six years. The sentence of fine is also in our view, excessive and not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. The same is reduced to a sum of Rs,10,000, in default whereof the appellant shall suffer R.I. For one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be extended to him.