Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 194 of 1982, decided on 7th November, 1982.

---S. 377‑‑Evidence, quantum of‑‑Solitary statement of victim of sodomy, in absence of any background of enmity, if corroborated by medical evidence, held, sufficient to form basis for conviction of accused under S. 377, P.P.E.‑‑[Evidence].

‑‑‑S.377‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Accused a raw youth of impressionable age of 16 years and a first offender‑‑Sentence of 1 years' R.I. held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances.‑‑[Sentence].

Ghulam Safdar Khan for Petitioner.

Rana Muhammad Anwar for the State.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1982.

Khalid Mahmood alias Nanna son of Fazal, Caste Arain aged 16 years resident of Qutabpur District Multan was convicted under section 377, P.P.C. by Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Magistrate Ist Class, Multan, vide his order, dated 16‑6‑1982 and sentenced to three years' R.I. for having committed sodomy on Abdul Khaliq P.W. on 31‑3‑1979. He filed appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who while maintaining the conviction and sentence dismissed the same vide order, dated 23‑8‑1982. He also dismissed a revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence of the petitioner. Being aggrieved Khalid' Mahmood filed this revision petition challenging the correctness of the aforesaid orders of both the lower Courts whereby he was found guilty under section 377, P.P.C.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 31‑3‑1979, Khalid Mahmood petitioner took Abdul Khaliq to the mango orchard owned by Sadiq Hussain Qureshi and committed carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. Hearing screams of the boy Muhammad Ashiq P.W.2 Abdul Aziz P.W.3 reached the scene and saw the occurrence. On seeing them the petitioner ran away. At the complaint of Muhammad Ashraf the case was registered. The accused was arrested and after due investigation challan was sent to the Court.

3. At the trial six witnesses were examined. Besides the eye‑witnesses mentioned above Dr. Allah Nawaz P.W.1, was also examined who deposed that he had observed, on the person of Abdul Khaliq P.W., tenderness around the anus, congestion of mucous membrane and a contusion mark 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the lower side of the anus at 6 o'clock position. However, no blood or semen stains were found on the clothes of the victim. He also medically examined the petitioner on 11‑4‑1979 and opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.

4. The petitioner, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that he was implicated in the case due to enmity. He further maintained that Abdul Khaliq victim was taken by Manna Masih, a friend of his but the police instead of challaning him has involved the petitioner in the case. He examined in his defence Mushtaq Ahmad as D.W.1 who deposed about his good character.

5. Learned trial Court on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record found that the allegation of sodomy against the petitioner was fully established beyond any shadow of doubt and proceeded to convict him as indicated above. Petitioner's appeal also failed before the Sessions Judge and thus there is concurrent finding of fact as to the guilt of the petitioner.

6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length at motion stage and also considered the material available on record but 1 was not pursuaded that the order of conviction of the petitioner was questionable for the eye‑witnesses were not independent. In my opinion leaving aside the evidence of eye‑witnesses the solitary statement of Abdul Khaliq P.W.4 victim of sodomy, in the absence of any background of enmity, corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to form basis for the conviction of the petitioner therefore, the revision petition was admitted to regular hearing on the sole ground to examine if the sentence awarded to the petitioner was excessive in the circumstances of the case.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is admittedly raw youth of 16 years of age having no previous hint of crime against him. He next submitted that if the petitioner is kept in jail for a longer period then he would be exposed to the risk of being led astray by remaining in the company of hardened criminals. There is sufficient merit in the submission of the learned counsel.

8. Taking into consideration the impressionable age of the petitioner who is also first offender, I am disposed to take lenient view. While maintaining the conviction under section 377, P.P.C., I reduce his sentence to 11 years which appears sufficient to meet requirement of the case. It is further directed that the period for which the petitioner remained in jail during his trial should be computed towards his sentence under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. With this modification in sentence, the revision petition stands partly accepted.

S.G.D. Sentence reduced.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.