SAEED alias PHULOO Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad, for the offence of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was originally sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. The core legal question concerned the legality of the sentence imposed, specifically whether the trial court exceeded the statutory limits prescribed for the offence. Upon review, the Federal Shariat Court found the prosecution's evidence, including medical testimony and eyewitness accounts, to be confidence-inspiring and sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, the Court held that Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, limits the term of imprisonment to a maximum of ten years if life imprisonment is not awarded. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment from fourteen years to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 permit a sentence of imprisonment exceeding ten years if life imprisonment is not imposed?
- Can a trial court impose a sentence of fourteen years for an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- 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 appeal.
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 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.
H.B.T./60/FSC Order accordingly.