SAEED alias. PHULOO vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable and whether the sentence of fourteen years was lawful under the statute. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the prosecution evidence fully established the guilt of the appellant and inspired confidence, Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes a maximum term of ten years when imprisonment for life is not awarded, making the sentence of fourteen years excessive. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal on merits regarding the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment from fourteen years to ten years while maintaining the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a sentence of imprisonment under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot exceed ten years unless imprisonment for life is awarded.
- Whether a sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment is lawful under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when imprisonment for life is not awarded?
- Can the appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the legal limits of punishment?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' S.A. RABBANI, J.--- On 15-3-2002 one Naazir Hussain lodged F.I.R. At Jaffar Abad Police Station Nasir Abad, Balochistan, about commission of sodomy by the present appellant with son of the complainant aged 5 years. After investigation, the present appellant was sent up for trial before Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 377, P.P.C. He convicted the present appellant accordingly and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For fourteen years with a fine of Rs,50, 000. In case of default he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for another one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended. This conviction and sentence has been challenged by way of the present arpeal.
2. The record shows that the trial Court examined two doctors who had medically examined the convict/appellant, and the victim minor boy, complainant Naazir Hussain, two other witnesses Dad Muhammad and A Inayatullah and the Investigating Officer. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their evidence appears to be confidence inspiring. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he denied the charge.
3. Mr. Saleheen Mughal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence on record, this is not a case of acquittal. He submitted that in view of young age of the appellant a reduction in the sentence would be in the interest of justice. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, learned counsel for the State concedes for reduction in sentence. Section 377, P.P.C. Provides two punishments viz. Imprisonment for life and imprisonment of either description for a term, which shall not be less than two years or more than ten years, and fine. Thus, the law requires that if the sentence is not imprisonment for life, it cannot be more than ten years. Accordingly, the sentence of fourteen years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to ten years' R.I. The punishment of fine and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is maintained.
' With this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.