ABDUR RAZAQ Versus THE STATE
This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 25-7-1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby appellant Abdur Razaq son of Shah Muhammad was convicted for offence under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.'
2. It is case of the prosecution that on 19-8-1989 the appellant attempted to commit Zina with Parveen Akhtar, a minor girl of 5/6 years. On her cries, witnesses Muhammad Hanif and Allah Rakha came there. They found Parveen Akhtar lying naked, so was the appellant. F.I.R. at the complaint of Muhammad Yaqoob, father of the minor girl was registered at the police station. However, the girl was not medically examined. The appellant was examined by Dr. Abdul Karim Azhar whose evidence is as under:--
"On 25-9-1989 I was posted as Medical Officer at Rural Dispensary, Qaimpur. On the same day the police of Police Station Qaimpur brought Abdur Razaq, accused present in the Court, before me for the purpose of his medical examination regarding sexual potency. I medically examined him. He was a boy of normal built. Facial and Axillary hairs were absent but pubic hairs were present. Both testies were present in the scrota. Secondary sex characters were not fully developed. There was no formity of external genetalia. Testies were fully descended: Cremastaric reflex was positive. In my opinion there was nothing to suggest that he was not able to perform sexual intercourse."
However, after usual investigation the appellant was sent up for trial before the Court.
3. The case came up for trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur Camp at Hasilpur where the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the allegation and examined Muhammad Khan and Allah Yar in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty for the offence under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced him for the same as mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal.
4. Mr. Aziz (Ozair) Ahmad Chughtai, Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate, for the State.
5. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits but requests for reduction in the sentence and submits that at the time of commission of offence the appellant was a minor boy of 13 years or so. The learned State counsel opposes the request of the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. It may be pertinent to observe that Mst. Parveen Akhtar who was, allegedly molested has not been examined by the Medical Officer. She was not even produced before the Court to determine whether she was able to give evidence or not. Besides the doctor who had examined the appellant has shown the age of the appellant to be 13 years. He was referred to Radiologist whose report is not available on the record. In such view of the fact, I feel that it is a case where lesser punishment be awarded to the appellant it has been brought to my notice, that the appellant has remained in custody as undertrial prisoner for one month and as a convict for one month. The period of two months is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from one year's S.I. to the period already undergone by him. The appellant was allowed bail by this Court. He is discharged front the obligation of bail bond.
N.H.Q./879/FSC
Sentence reduced.