AHMED SAEED vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had reduced the sentences of two respondents convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, for offences under Sections 377 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Federal Shariat Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences. The petitioner challenged this reduction, arguing that the trial court had already been lenient and that the appellate court lacked justification for further reducing the sentence of respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court examined the contention regarding the reduction of the sentence for respondent No. 1, who was convicted under Section 377, and granted leave to appeal to consider whether the reduction was appropriate. However, the Court refused to grant leave regarding respondent No. 2, who was convicted under Section 109, finding no sufficient grounds to interfere with the sentence reduction in that specific instance.
- Whether the Federal Shariat Court was justified in further reducing the sentence of a convict already treated leniently by the trial court?
- Should leave to appeal be granted when the appellate court's reduction of a sentence warrants further judicial examination?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were tried for offences under sections 377 and 109, P.P.C. By Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari. Respondent No,1 was convicted under section 377, P.P.C. And sentenced to 3 years R.I. And fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For 6 months. Respondent No,2 was convicted under section 109, P.P.C. Read with section 377, P.P.C. And sentenced to 3 years R.I. And fine of Rs,1,000 and in default to further undergo R.I. For 3 months. On appeal the conviction of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was maintained but their sentences were reduced to 2 and 1-1/2 years respectively, maintaining their sentences of fine. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to both the respondents. The complainant has challenged the judgment of Federal. Shariat Court reducing the sentences of the respondents Nos.1 and 2.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,1 was already dealt with leniently by the Trial Court and awarded a sentence of 3 years only while the maximum punishment for the offence is ten years, and fine keeping in view the fact that he was the first offender and as such there was no occasion for the learned Federal Shariat Court to have again further reduced the sentence on the same ground. The contention needs examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in so far the reduction of sentence of respondent No,1 under section 377, P.P.C. Is concerned. We are, however, not inclined to grant leave to appeal in respect of the sentence awarded to respondent No,2 who was not found guilty by both the Courts below under section 377, P.P.C. And was convicted under section 109, P.P.C. The petition in so far, it relates to respondent No,2 is dismissed.