This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,345-J of 2000 tiled by the appellant through jail against the judgment dated 17-11-2000 passed, by Special. Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No, III, Lahore, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 365, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years'
R.I. with fine of Rs,1,00.000 or in default siz months' S.I. He also convicted the appellant under sections 377/511, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years' R. I. with fine of Rs,50.000 or in default three months' S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B. Cr. P.C.
2. The facts in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant are that on 10-6-1999 on Thursday Muhammad Azeem a student of Haliz-e-Quean of Jamia Sherazia Rasoolia was abdudcted by some unknown person who after escape from the secret and wrongful confinement of the appellant narrated the whole incident to the complainant that appellant had taken the victim to Kamalia where he was confined wrongfully in a room for the whole night. Next morning the victim escaped from the wrongful confinement of the appellant and reached Larri Adda at Kamalia where he sealed in a bus. The appellant chased him and found him in the bus. The appellant asked him to go back on which the victim started weeping. The victim told the people present at Adda about his abduction on which the appellant was apprehended by the people.
Thereafter, F.I.R. No, 250 of 1999 was lodged.
3. Sultan Ahmad. S.1. took the investigation in his hands and investigated the matter. He found the appellant guilty of offence under section 365. P.P.C. read with sections 377/511. P.P.C. He submitted the challan for trial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 6 witnesses in all. Thereafter, statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under section 342. C.P.C. in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. It is pertinent to note here that in this jail appeal initially Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate was appointed as defence counsel at State expense. He is not present today. I have asked Kh.
Muhammad Iqbal Butt: Advocate to appear in this case and argue the matter to defend the appellant, at State expenses.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Butt. Advocate submits that there is no independent corroboration of the statement of Muhmmad Azeem victim in this case, that no case is made out against the appellant, that two witnesses namely Aftab Ahmad and Zaheerud-Din who belonged to Kamalia and were informed by the victim about his abduction from the hands of the appellant did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. He submits that as far as P.W.3 is concerned, he was not an eyewitness in this case, that no case under sections 377/511, P.P.C. read with section 365. P.P.C. is made out against the appellant that learned Trial Court was wrong in convicting the appellant.
7. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that appellant had abducted the victim namely Muhammad Azeem aged about 14 years from Lahore and had taken him to Kamalia where he also tried to commit sodomy on him, that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. He supports the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. In the instant case star witness of the prosecution is Muhammad Azeem victim aged about 14 years. He was student of Jamia Sherazia Rasoolia, Bilal Ganj, Lahore. On the day of occurrence he was roaming in the part of Meenar-e-Pakistan where the appellant met him and enticed him to Kamalia and thereafter, he tried to commit sodomy with him. The victim after deceiving the appellant on the pretext that he want to ease himself ran away and boarded a bus for Lahore from Kamalia. Appellant also followed him on a bicycle. He forced the victim to accompany him on which the victim raised hue and cry. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and was challened in this case. Muhammad Azeem victim had got no enmity whatsoever with the appellant. He had named the appellant in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and he had also named the appellant in his statement before the Trial Court and had fully identified him before the Court.
There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony made before the police or before the Trial Court. His statement is corroborated by the statement of Raza-e-Mustafa Naqshbandi the complainant in this case because the complaint Exh. P.A which was an application was submitted by him after hearing the story from the victim. It is correct that two witnesses namely Aftab Ahmad and Zaheer- ud-Din have not supported the prosecution case. If statements of both these witnesses are excluded even otherwise the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant so the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is maintained but with the modification which is mentioned below:- Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under section 365, P.P.C. is reduced from 7 years to four years' R.I. and the tine is reduced from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,10.000 or in default 3 months S.I. Conviction and sentence warded to the appellant under sections 377/511, P.P.C. is also modified and converted from 5 years to 3 years' R.I. Fine is also reduced from Rs,50,000 to Rs,10,000 or in default 3 months' S.I.
All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. with these observations this appeal stands disposed of.
9. It is noted by this Court that the State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not got with them either the judicial file or the Chatha of evidence recorded by the learned Trial. Court, so they are handicapped during the time of arguments and not well-prepared, even today. I had also decided an Appeal bearing No, 266 of 1999 and same was the position in that appeal and learned State Counsel could not state a single word in that appeal. Copy of this order shall be sent to Advocate-General, Punjab, who would look into the matter and would direct the Superintendent Criminal Bench that whenever a case is entrusted to any State counsel he should also be provided with judicial file and the evidence recorded by the Trial Court so that he should come prepared and then argue the case properly because matters of life and death of people are involved in so many appeals.