PLJ 2001 FSC 46
Present: ch. ejaz yousuf and khan RiAZ-uo-DiN ahmed, J J, SALEEM KHAN and others-Appellants
versus STATE and others-Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 90-1, 92-1 and Criminal Revision No. 7-1 of 2000, decided on 20.12.2000.
(i) Evidence-
—Not the number of witnesses, but quality and credibility of evidencewhich is to be considered. [P, 54] F
(ii)
—-S. 377-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 19-Delay in lodging .I.R. was satisfactorily explained-Medical evidence was not at varianceto prosecution version-Victim not only had fully supported prosecution case as regards sodomy committed upon him by all accused persons, but also in a straightforward manner had deposed that he was taken by one of accused to place of occurrence deceitfully—Victim was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by accused but nothing favourable to them or damaging to prosecution, was elicited from him-Sole testimony of victim which inspired confidence, would be sufficient to base conviction of accused and was rightly believed by Trial Court-Prosecution witness in his deposition had confirmed statement of victim-Disclosure made byvictim to prosecution witness regarding incident being a statement made under immediate influence of transaction, was admissible as res gestae under Art. 19 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-No evidence was available on record to believe that accused were falsely implicated in case by victim or his father in order to settle score on account of previous animously or litigation between parties as alleged by accused-Abduction of victim wasan individual act of one" of accused and while partly allowing criminal appeal to extent of that accused, High Court convicted him under S. 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years on that count as well--Caseagainst accused having full been proved they were rightly convicted and sentenced. [Pp. 51, 53 to 56] A, D, E, H, I, J, K & L1978 SCMR 136; 1987 PCr.LJ 2127; PLD 1992 SC 211; PLD 1971 Lah. 929; 197 1C 839 and AIR 1926 Pat. 58 ref.
(iii)
—-S. 377-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 12-Cases of Zina and sodomy wherein honour of the victim and his family is always at stake, delay in lodging F.I.R., normally had not been considered fatal, provided it is satisfactorily explained,[P.. 52] B
PLD 1984 FSC 121; PLD 1984 FSC 55 and 1997 PCr.LJ 1500 ref.
(iv)
—-S. 377-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of1979), Ss. 10 & 12-Generally, in cases of Zina and sodomy, hardly thereis any witness other than victim as it is very rare that offence would takeplace in view of others or at public place-Sole testimony of victim wouldbe attached great sanctity and would be sufficient to base conviction ofaccused, if same inspired confidence. [P. 55] G
(v) Qamm-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-
-—S. 19-Sodmy-Offence of-Disclosure made by victim to prosecution witnesses regarding incident being a statement made under immediate influence of transaction is admissible as res gestae under Article 19 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. [P. 55] J (vi) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- -—Arts. 132, 133 & 30-Examination and cross-examination of witness--If evidence given by a witness on certain point in examination-in-chief was not challenged and authenticity of fact was not questioned in cross-examination, legal presumption would be that said fact had been admitted by party against whom same had been brought on record. fP, 52] C SCMR 2300; 1988 SCMR 819; 1993 PCr.LJ 1632; PLD 1993 Kar. 13; ALD 269(2); PLD 1963 Kar. 465; 1989 CLC 545; 1987 MLD 515; PLD 1981 Kar. 537; 1985 MLD 110 and PLD 1967 Lah. 1138 ref. Ch. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant (in Cr. A. No. 90-1 of 2000). Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Zia for the State (in Cr. A. No. 90-1 of 2000). Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for Appellant (in Cr. A. No. 92-1 of 2000). Ch. Abdul Qayyum for Respondents (in Cr. A. No. 92-1 of 2000). Malik Rab Nawaz Noon for Petitioner (in Cr. R. No. 7-1 of 2000). Date of hearing: 17.11.2000.
judgment
Ch. Etfaz Yousuf, J.-Criminal Appeal No. 90/1 of 2000 has been filed against the judgment, dated 2.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 377, P.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 20,000 or in default thereof to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment each. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. has been extended to the appellants. Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 has been filed by the complainant, against the same judgment, challenging acquittal of the respondents/appellants from the charge under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 whereas Criminal Revision No. 7/1 of 2000 has also been filed by him for enhancement of sentence of the respondents/appellants under Section 377, P.P.C. Since both the appeals as well as the revision arise out of the same judgment, therefore, these are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Fact of the case, in brief, are that on 10.2.1999 report Exh. P.C., was lodged by one Bahadar Khan son of Sadar Khan, with S.H.O. Police Station Injra wherein, it was alleged that his son, namely, Falak Naz, a student of 10th class on 5.2.1999 was studying in their fields. In the meantime, appellant Shaukat reached the spot and took his son to another Dhoke on the pretext of getting a cock for him. On reaching the said Dhoke Shaukat asked his son to sit in a room of the house and went away on the pretext of bringing the cock. Thereafter, Saleem Khan son of Habibullah reached the place of occurrence, who closed door of the said room, maltreated his son and thereafter gagged his mouth by putting small stones and earth therein. Later on, all the four appellants committed sodomy upon his son. It was further alleged in the report that Pervez Ahmad P.W. who, at the relevant time, was grazing goats had seen his son in the company of Shaukat accused while they were going towards the said Dhoke, but since both i.e. his son and Shaukat accused were releaves, therefore, he kept quiet. It was further alleged that after subjecting his son to unnatural lust ail the accused persons laid his son at a place situated about one kilometer from the place of occurrence where, Subedar Umar Khan, who had gone earlier to the Dhoke for purchasing eggs and was on way back to his house was attracted and on seeing him the culprits fled away from the spot. Subedar Umar Khan, therefore, brought his son to his house where he i.e. his son narrated to the complainant the entire story. However, since thereafter the complainant was forced by notables of the area to bring about a settlement, which could not be accomplished, hence the report. On the stated allegations formal F.I.R. Bearing No. 11 under Section 377 read with Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered at the said police station and investigation was carried out in pursuance thereof. On the completion of investigation the appellants were challaned to the Court for trial.
3.
Charge was accordingly framed against the
accused/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.
At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charge
and substantiate
the allegations levelled against the accused/appellants produced13 witnesses,
in all. P.W.I Tariq Mahmood had on 10.2.1999 received from Zafarullah, A.S.-I.
P.W.10 two sealed parcels, a sealed envelope and a sealed pack for keeping the
same in safe custody, when he kept in the Malkhana and on 13.2.1999
handed the same over to P.W. 4
intact for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Rawalpindi. P.W. 2
Rab Xawaz. Constable had
taken the victim Falak Naz to the Hospital for medical examination. P.W.3. Dr. Faiz
Muhammad Farooqi had on 10.2.1999 examined the victim and observed as under :--
"(1) A bruise mark 3.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. on left upper lid.
(2)
Two healed marks abrasions 0.5 c.m. x 0.1 c.m. on the
back of
left
hand.
(3)
Complaint of pain on the back of left chest, left thigh
and
headache."
As per his opinion the probable duration between injuries and medical examination was within five days. However, no marks of violence or abrasions were noticed by him on the anal region of the victim. As per his opinion, the abovenoted Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with blunt weapons. He took three swabs from anus of the victim and sent the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner. After consulting the Chemical Examiner's Report he opined that since swabs were not stained with semen, therefore, the victim was not subjected to sodomy. He produced in Court the M.L.R. as Exh. P.B. P.W.4 Muhammad Khalid, Constable had taken the swabs to the office of the Chemical Examiner which he delivered intact on 18.2.1999, in the said office, P.W. 5 Khan Bahadar, is the complainant. He, at the trial, reiterated the version contained in the F.I.R. P.W.6 Falak Naz is the victim. He while corroborating the statement of P.W. 5, in all material particulars confirmed that the appellants were the same who had forcibly subjected him to unnatural lust. P.W.7 Umar Khan had seen the victim in the company of appellants about a kilometer from the Dhoke when accused-appellants had allegedly laid him on the ground. He deposed that appellants on seeing him fled from the spot. P.W.8. Dr. Zafar Iqbal had examined the appellants qua the poterjy test on various dates. He produced in Court M.L.Cs. concerning the appellants as Exhs. P.O., P.E., P.F. and P.G. P.W. 9 Sahib Khan, S.-I. had on 14.10.1999 arrested appellant Fakhar Alam. P.W. 10 Allah Bakhsh, A.S.-I. had partially investigated the case. P.W. 11 Zafarullah, A.S.-I., too had partially investigated the case. P.W. 12 Pervez Ahmad had seen the victim in the company of Shaukat appellant on the day of incident. P.W. 13 Muhammad Yousaf, I.P. had submitted challan in the Court.
5. On the completion of prosecution evidence the appellants were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. In their above statements they denied the charge and pleaded innocence. The stand taken by appellants Fakhar Alam, Muhammad Younas and Shaukat before the trial Court was, that they were implicated on the basis of civil litigation between the parents of the victim whereas, appellant Saleem pleaded that there was a quarrel between the victim and himself in the fields, on the catching of a quail. They, however, failed to lead any evidence in their defence or to appear as their own witnesses in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6.
After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties the learned trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to the
punishment
as mentioned in the opening para, hereof.
7.
We have heard Ch. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate, learned counsel
forthe
appellants, Malik Rab Rawaz Noon, Advocate, learned counsel for thecomplainant in
Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 as well as in CriminalRevision No. 7/1 of
2000 and Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Zia, Advocate, learnedcounsel for the State
arid have also gone through the entire record with theirassistance.
8.
Ch. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate, learned counsel for the
appellantshas raised the
following contentions :—
(1)
That the unexplained delay of five days in lodging the
F.I.R. waSfatal
towards the prosecution case.
(2)
That solitary statement of the victim was not sufficient
to baseconviction
thereon, especially keeping in view the fact that theprosecution version
was not supported by the medical evidence.
(3)
That since there was previous enmity between the parties,therefore, false
implication of the appellants could not have
been
ruled out.
9. Malik Rab
Nawaz Noon, Advocate, learned
counsel for thecomplainant in Criminal
Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 and in Criminal Revision
No. 7/1 of 2000, on the other hand,
submitted :--
(a) That prosecution case was fully established through
|
d |
|
|
independent and reliable evidence, therefore, the Impu judgment was unexceptionable.
(b) That statement of the
victim was corroborated by ocular as wellas circumstantial evidence inasmuch as that
P.W.12 PervezAhmed had seen
the victim in
the company of Shaukat appellant prior to the occurrence
and P.W.7 Umar Khan hadseen the appellants while they had just laid the victim on
the ground soon
thereafter. Further the
deposition of P.W.7 regarding the fact that the victim
immediately after the incident had narrated to him the fact about commission of sodomy
upon him lends additional corroboration to his statement.
(c)
That though Chemical Examiner's Report was negative and keeping in view the
same it was opined by P.W. 3 that he wasunable to trace ny marks of violence on the anus region of
the victim yet, it
cannot be said
that medical evidence
wascontradictory to
the prosecution version
because Dr. FaizMuhammad Farooqi has confirmed that certain
other injuries
detailed in Exh. P.B. were available on the pe^L 'Regarding disappearance of marks of region of the victim he pleaded that it was quid .u ,_ _ examination of the victim took place five days * and in the meantime the symptoms had disapotChemical Examiner's Report he submitted meantime stool was frequently passed by the ' detection of semen was out of question.In the end. he pleaded that since parties were related inter sc and on record it is not proved that the parties had enmity or strained relation with each other, therefore, P.Ws. were rightly believed by the trial Court.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant whilearguing in support of the Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 filed against.acquittal of the respondents from the charge under Section 12 of the Offence:f Z:/;a (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 submitted that sincevictim was taken away by deceitful means, therefore, it was proved on recordtnat he was abducted. As such, acquittal of the appellants from the chargeunder Section 12 of the Ordinance was not justified. Regarding thi- concc-aceof imprisonment inflicted on the appellants he submitted that i.f wasinadequate.
11. In order to supplement his first contention th delay
of five days in lodging the F.l.R. was fatal towardtf.e learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that ui ::currer.ce took
place on 5.2.1999 whereas report was fter five days and no explanation regarding
delay was delay
in lodging the F.l.R. was fatal towards the ascertain as to whether or not there is
substance in learned counsel for the appellant, we have ourselves mtmju mentioned that since
after occurrence notables of the ai j complainant to
settle the dispute
through a complainant could not lodge the report
earlier. In his complainant
has categorically stated that since as "Jirga after the
occurrence and efforts for reconciliationtherefore, he could not lodge the report. In the circumstj have
been said or concluded
that the delay in unexplained. It is, however, entirely a different
matter ottered in this regard was
satisfactory or not. mention here that
in the impugned judgment, the remarked
that in the absence of previous enmity betw ec motive to falsely implicate the accused, the explanau 'complainant cannot be doubted and we see no reason
aview may be taken because in the
absence of very'compelling reasons
nobody would like to charge the other with such a shameful act which is equally humiliating to him
and his family.It would be pertinent
to mention here that in a number of cases it has been held that in the absence of evidence of enmity, delay in lodging
the F.I.R., is of not much consequence. Reference in this regard may usefully
be made to the cases of Zar Bahadur v. The State 1978 SCMR 136 and Abdul
Ghaffar and another u. The
State reported as 1987 PCr.LJ
2127. Further, in the case of Mst
Shamim Akhtar v. Fiaz Akhtar and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 211 it has been held that the delay in lodging the
F.I.R. is no ground to disbelieve the
prosecution witnesses.It would also
be out of place to mention here that in case of Zina and sodomy in which, honour of the victim and his
family is always at stake, normally, delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been
considered fatal, provided it is
satisfactorily explained. This view receives support from the following reported judgments :--(i) Suleman v. The State PLD 1984 FSC
121 and (ii) Mubarik All and another u. The State PLD 1984 FSC 55.A Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Azhar Iqbal and 2 others 1997 PCr.LJ 1500 has also laid down
that since in cases of sodomy, male-ego and family honour is involved, therefore,
Nekmards (Notables) of the area do make efforts for compromise and delay in
lodging the F.I.R. is natural result of socio-eithic situations coupled with
painful mental conditions of victim and his close relatives. The fact cannot be lost
sight of that
statement of the complainant with regard to the explanation offered by him in lodging the
F.I.R. was not specifically challenged at the trial, therefore, in our
view it was rightly believed by the trial Court.It is well-settled that if
evidence given by a witness on certain point, in examination-in-chief, is not
challened and authenticity of the fact is not questioned in cross-examination, the
legal presumption would be that said fact has been admitted by the party against
whom the same has been brought on record. This view receives support from the
following reported judgments :--Mst. Noor Jehan Begum through legal representatives
u. SyedMujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300 ;
(1) Qamar-ud-Din through
his legal heirs v. Hakim Mahmood
Khan 1988 SCMR 819 ;
(2)
Muhammad and others v. State 1993 PCr.LJ 1632;
(3)
Kaleem Ahmad and others u. The State PLD 1993 Kar. 13 ;
(4)
Amjad Pervez u. State 1992 ALD 269 (2);
2001 saleem khan v. state FSC 53
(Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, Jj
(6) Mst. Nazeer Begum v.
Abdul Sattar PLD 1963 Kar, 465 ;
(7)
Karim-ud-Din Shad v. Mst. Fatima Mian Ahmad 1989 CLC 545;
(8)
Muhammad Ibrahim v. Haji Raza Hussain 1987 MLD 515 ,
(9)
Muhammad Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Siddiqui v. Abdul Ban attd 3
others
PLD
1981 Kar. 537 ;
(10) Fida Hussain v. Mst.
Anwari Khatoon 1985 MLD 110 and
(11) Syed Iqbal Hussain v.
Mst. Sarwari Begum PLD 1967 Lah.
1138.
We are, therefore, unable to subscribe to the contention of the learne counsel for the appellant that the delay in lodging in F.I.R. was fatal to the | I)prosecution case.12. In furtherance of his next contention that solitary statement of the victim was not sufficient to base conviction thereon, especially in view of the fact that it was not supported by the medical evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though, Dr. Faiz Muhammad Farooqi had vide his report Exh. P.B. opined that the victim was not subjected to sodomy yet, the learned trial Court has believed statement of the victim in recording conviction against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant maintained that in the circumstances, appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of solitary statement of the victim. In order to ascertain as to whether there is any substance in the contention, we have ourselves minutely gone through the record of the case. No doubt it has been opined by P.W. 3 Dr. Faiz Muhammad Farooqi that the victim was not subjected to sodomy and in expressing the opinion he has also consulted the Chemical Examiner's Report yet, by no stretch of imagination it can be said That the medical evidence was at variance to the prosecution version. The fact cannot be lost sight of that in the M.L.R. i.e. Exh. P.B, at least three injuries have been mentioned by P.W. 3 firstly, a bruise mark 3.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the left upper lid of the victim and secondly, two healed marks abrasions 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. and 0.5 c.m. x 0.1 c.m. on the back of his left hand. Besides, it has also been specified therein that the victim had complained headache as well as pain on the back .of the left side of the chest and also in the left thigh therefore, it could not have been concluded with certainty that the aforementioned injuries were not the outcome of the incident. So far as the absence of injuries/abrasions on the anus region of the victim is concerned, we see reason in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that since medical examination of the victim took place after five days of the occurrence, therefore, the marks of violence had disappeared in the meantime and it was quite natural. In order to satisfy ourselves on this point, we have consulted Modis' book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology as well. In twenty second edition of the bonk at page 349, under the head of "Examination of thebeen remarked by Modi that if the boy (passive agent) is not accustomed to sodomy then following signs may be discovered :--"1. Abrasions on the skin near the anus with pain in walking and on defecation, as well as during examination. These injuries arc extensive and well-defined in cases where there is great disproportion in size between the anal orifice of the victim and the virile member of the accused. Hence lesions will be most marked in children, while they may be almost absent in adults, when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. These injuries, if slight, heal very rapidly in two or three days. In most of the cases brought before Modi, he had seen superficial abrasions, varying from 1/6" to 1" x 1/6" to 1/4", external to the sphincter ani. In some cases there may be bruising of the parts round about the anus, and the abrasiu"; may extend into the anus beyond its sphincter. (Underlining is ours).Having regard to the underlined portion of the above passage, we may observe here that disappearance of the injuries or bruises on the anal region, if any, was quite natural. And while keeping in view, the opening sentence of the above passage wherein it has been mentioned that the victim may feel pain in walking, we would like to make a reference to the deposition of Falak Na2 who in the course of his cross-examination has categorically stated that after sodomy he was unable to walk and this portion of his statement too, was not challenged by the defence. It would also be pertinent to mention here, that Modi in his above book, at the same page, at Serial No. 5 has also opined that signs of struggle such as bruises, scratches, etc. on the person of the victim, if he is a grown-up boy, and if he is not a consenting part}- may also be discovered, therefore, in the presence of the injuries on the person of the victim as mentioned by the doctor in the M.L.R. it cannot be said that medical evidence was at variance to the prosecution version.So far as the second limb of argument in the contention that the solitary statement of the victim was not sufficient to base conviction thereon is concerned, it may be pointed out here that it is not the number of witnesses but quality and credibility of the evidence which is to be considered. In cases of Zina and sodomy, there are generally hardly any witnesses other than the victim, as it is very rare that such offence takes place in view of others or at public place. That is why, the Superior Courts in this country have attached great sanctity to the statement of the victim and it has been repeatedly laid down that sole testimony of the victim would be sufficient to base conviction thereon if it inspires confidence. The contention, therefore, has no force.13. As regard the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was previous enmity between the parties, therefore, false implication of the appellant on that count, could not have been ruled out, it may be pointed out here, that though in the course of histement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. appellant Salim has stated that on the day of occurrence he had a quarrel with the victim upon the catching of a quail, in the fields, and appellant Shoukat has stated that since civil litigation was pending between his parents and the parents of the victim regarding a dispute over the land and, therefore, he was falsely implicated in the case and similar was the stand taken by the other two appellants namely Younas and Fakhre Alam yet, an iota of evidence is not available on the record to believe that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case by j the victim or his father in order to settle the score, on account of prev.ous j enmity or litigation. Since respondents have also not bothered to i substantiate the defence plea by producing any sort of confirmatory evidence, therefore, it was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial ourt,
14. It would also be not out of place to mention here,
that FalakNaz, the victim in the
instant case, has not only fully supported theprosecution case as regards the sodomy committed upon him by all tiieappellants, but in a straightforward manner has
deposed that he was takenby appellant
Shaukat to the place of occurrence deceitfully, on the pretext ofpurchasing a cock where, he was subjected to sodomy
and culprits aftersatisfying their
lust laid him in a field and disappeared. However, whilefleeing they were seen by P.W. 7 Umar Khan to whom
as per prosecution
version, the witnesses narrated the
entire incident. Since P.W.7 in hisdeposition has confirmed the above fact, therefore,
the disclosure made bythe victim to
P.W.7 reading the incident being a statement made underimmediate influence of the transaction was
admissible as res gestae underArticle 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984. Reference in this regardmay be
made to the cases of Faqir Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Lah.929. Noor Muhammad v. Imtiaz Ahmad and another 197
1C 839 andEmperor v. Phagunia
15. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 filed by thecomplainant against the impugned judgment, challenging acquittal of therespondents-appellants from the charge under Section 12 of the Offence ofZina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is concerned, it may bepointed out here that though it has been pleaded by the learned counsel forthe appellant that since the victim was abducted by all the respondents inorder to satisfy their lust, therefore, they may be punished under Section 12of the Hudood Ordinance, as well yet, on record, the prosecution has provedonly to the extent that respondent Shaukat, who is a close relative of thevictim had, on the pretext of purchasing cock, taken the victim to the placewhere, he was subjected to sodomy. However, no evidence was led tosubstantiate that respondent Shaukat had done so at the instance of rest, ofespondents or the offence of abduction was committed by the respondents in furtherance of their common intention. The fact cannot be lost sight of that as per victim's own statement respondent Shaukut after taking him to the place of occurrence had gone away and it was after some time that the rest of the espondents-appellants reached the spot. Therefore, the inference possible to be drawn is that had the other respondents been in active connivance with respondent Shaukat, qua the offence of abduction or had they sent him to bring the victim then they, in all probabilities would have been waiting for the victim at the place of occurrence. In the circumstances, we have no option but to hold that abduction of the victim was an individual act of respondent Shaukat and rest of the respondents-appellants were liable only for the act of sodomy. In such view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 is partially allowed and respondent Muhammad Shaukat son of Masin Khan is convicted under Section 12 of ihe Hudood Ordinance as well and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years on that count. However, both the sentences recorded against him i.e. under Section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance as well as, under Section 377, P.P.C. shall run concurrently.As regards Criminal Revision No. 7/1 of 2000 it may be pointed out here, that since as per our estimation the sentences of imprisonment as well as fine inflicted on the appellants-respondents under Section 377, P.P.C. are adequate arid correspond with the gravity of the offence, therefore, enhancement a prayed for, is not warranted.Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 92/1 of 2000 to the extent as mentioned above, is partly allowed, however, Criminal Appeal No. 90/1 of 2000 as well as Criminal Revision No. 7/1 of 2000 are dismissed. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., ended to the appellants by the learned trial Court, shall remain intact.(T.A.F.) Order accordingly.