NATHU KHAN vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the petitioner's sentence from two years to eight years of rigorous imprisonment following a conviction for rape. The petitioner, convicted under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that his advanced age should serve as a mitigating factor for sentence reduction. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner's age warranted leniency in the context of a heinous crime. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that advanced age is not a mitigating factor but rather an aggravating one, as greater responsibility is expected of older individuals. The Court affirmed the High Court's enhancement of the sentence, emphasizing that once guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, courts must impose exemplary and deterrent punishments for heinous offenses. The ratio establishes that lenient sentencing for serious crimes fosters public insecurity and the perception of impunity; therefore, judicial responses must be robust to demonstrate that society and the State do not tolerate such conduct.
- Does the advanced age of an accused convicted of a heinous crime constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes?
- Is the High Court empowered to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance a sentence imposed by a lower court?
- What is the judicial policy regarding the imposition of deterrent sentences for heinous offenses once guilt is established?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Aslam Riaz HITSSAIN, ACTG. C.
3.-Nathu Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal againq the judgment of the High Court, dated 8.6- 1985, whereby it suo motu enhanced the sentence of the petitioner from 2 years' R. I. To 8 years' R. I., in a case under section 376, P. P. C.
2. The facts of the prosecution case, briefly, are that Nathu Khan petitioner accused committed rape on Mst. Parveen, a little girl aged about 9 years, who was found bleeding from her private parts and had also injuries on her face, described as contusion marks 1" x 1" on each of her cheeks.
On examination the lady doctor found that the hymen was ruptured and had tears and the private part was swollen even after four days. The A trial Court convicted him under section 376, P. P. C., and sentenced him to 3i years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 100 (6 months in default of payment of fine). On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment from 31 years' R. I. To 2 years' R. I. Nathu was still not satisfied and filed a criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court issued notice to him suo motu to show cause as to why his sentence should not be enhanced.
3. After hearing the petitioner's counsel the High Court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment from 2 years' R. I. To 8 years' R. I. And the sentence of fine from Rs, 100 to Rs, 1,000, in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further R. I. For one year.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by him in support of his prayer for reduction of sentence is that he is very old. We are of the view that instead of being a mitigating circumstance the fact that he is of advanced age goes against him, because he is expected to be more responsible at that age. The act done by him was not only cruel but also deplorable. Courts always try to peruse evidence against every accused with extreme care and are liberal in giving benefit of doubt wherever there is the slightest apprehension that the prosecution case might not be true. But once an offence is established against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, as in the present case, and all the appellate as well as the revisional Courts uphold that finding, exemplary and deterrent punishments should be awarded, as observed by this Court in Muhammad Amin v. The State (1).
4-A. Each time one reads in the media about the people convicted of heinous crimes being let off with minor sentences, the impression goes round that such crimes can be committed with impunity. It might even appear to the public at large as if crime is being patronised. This creates a sense of dismay and insecurity in the peace-loving and law-abiding citizens. We are, therefore, of the view that Courts of law while E punishing such convicts should award deterrent sentences so that it is manifest that society as well as the State do not countenance such crimes and react strongly, through Courts of law.
5. We respectfully endorse the action of the learned High Court in enhancing the sentence of the petitioner in exercise of its suo motu power.
' With these observations the petition is dismissed.
(11 P 1. D 1984 SC 341
Cited by 1 case
- Mehboob vs The State 2025 SHC HYD 1744