| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1723 1961 SLD 1723 = 1961 PLD 7 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1960, decided on 2nd January 1961.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid, J
Abdul Majid for Appellant. Ghazanfar Ali Shah, A. A.-G. for
Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1960, decided on 2nd January 1961.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid, J
Abdul Majid for Appellant. Ghazanfar Ali Shah, A. A.-G. for
Respondents.
MAAZULLAH-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 377/511-Accused discharging, by rubbing of private parts without proceeding to penetrate--Not a case of attempt. Date of hearing : 2nd January 1961. JUDGMENT Maazullah appellant, whose age is recorded to be about 26 years, was convicted of an offence under section 377/511, P. P. C. by the Additional District Magistrate, Charsadda, and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by his order dated 26th October 1960. He has appealed from that order. The allegations against the appellant were that Sherzada, a boy of about ten years ofage, was cutting grass in a field. The accused caught hold of him there, removed his trousers and also his own, and rubbed his penis against his anus, and got discharged, and left him there. The complainant then proceeded to his house, narrated the incident to his mother, and then both of them went, to the police station and lodged the first information report in which Maazullah was charged for this offence. The doctor, who examined the complainant, found no external injury, or abrasion, orbruise, on the complainant's anus. Only mucous membrance of the surface of the anus was stated to be red and congested, and inside, the anal canal there was a laceration of 1" in degree. The accused denied the commission of this offence and stated that he was charged atthe instance of his enemies. As there is no enmity between the complainant and the accused, there is no reasonfor a false charge, especially, for the accusation of a disgraceful nature, like the one preferred. The only question to consider is whether the offence committed is one under section377/511, P. P. C. or of wrongful confinement and use of criminal force? It is clear from the medical evidence that there was no penetration of the penis of theaccused into the anus of the complainant. It is also clear that there was no attempt to resort to actual penetration. The complainant said: "The accused was rubbing his penis on my anus... but he discharged outside and could not penetrate." If there had been any intention on the part of the accused to effect penetration, there was…