RAB NAWAZ Versus THE STATE Masoud Mirza , M. Iqbal
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J .‑‑This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Judge Special Courts for Speedy Trials, Faisalabad, whereby, he on 26‑11‑1987. convicted Rab Nawaz appellant under section 377, P.P.C. for committing sodomy upon Tanveer Ahmad aged 6 years and sentenced him to 8 years' R.I. and a fine of R ;.5,000, in default thereof two years' R.I.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 377, P.P.C. and rightly so. Tanveer Ahmad has stated that Rab Nawaz appellant had committed sodomy upon him. His statement finds support from the medical evidence. Neither Rab Nawaz nor his father had serious enmity against the appellant to involve him falsely in the case. It is a case of single accused and the appellant has not been able to lay down any foundation for his substitution in place of real offender. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.5 and Ghulam Abbas P.W.7 are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They seem to be quite dependable witnesses. They have successfully faced the test of cross‑examination. The appellant has not been able to rebut prosecution case and impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. For these reasons, we are convinced that Rab Nawaz has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.
3. This brings us to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant has requested for leniency in the matter of sentence on the ground that the appellant was under the age of 14 years at the time of occurrence and that he is not a previous convict. Reliance has been placed on case Ali Muhammad v. The State reported as PLD 1970 Lah. 230 and 1987 P.Cr.L.J. 1085. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in sentence. He relied on 'Gulzar Khan v. The State reported as P L D 1987 SC (A.J.K) 9 to contend that the appellant, in the circumstances of the case, does not deserve any leniency. We have considered the question of sentence with utmost care on our part. We feel that, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence of 8 years' R.I. is excessive one. The same is, therefore, reduced to 3 years' R.I., which will meet the ends of justice. The fine of Rs.5,000 and the sentence in lieu thereof is maintained. Order accordingly.
M.Y.H./R‑75/L Appeal partly allowed.