| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 149 1977 SLD 149 1977 SCMR 234 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 8-P of 1974, decision dated: 18th January 1977
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., DORAB PATEL AND QAISER KHAN, JJ
Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 8-P of 1974, decision dated: 18th January 1977
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., DORAB PATEL AND QAISER KHAN, JJ
Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
NAUSHAD
VS
JEHANZEB AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----- S. 377-Sodomy--Sentence-Respondent aged 7/18 years, molesting; appellant, a boy aged 5' years committing forcible carnal intercourse with hire and causing injuries on person of victim-Offence committed by appellant being heinous, sentence of 3 months R. I, held, not only inadequate but wholly perverse--Sentence enhanced to 5 years' R I., in circumstances.--[sentence-Sodomy]. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- --- S -139--Revision-Sentence, enhancement of-Power to enhance sentence conferred on High Court-Not subject to condition of sentence awarded by trial Court being still subsisting.-[Sentence Revision (criminal)]. Atta Muhammad Shah v. The State P .L. D 1967 Lah. 357 approved. ORDER MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.---Jehanzeb, respondent, aged 17/18 was convicted by Magistrate 1st Class, Nowshera, under section 377, P. P. C. for having committed carnal intercourse with Naushad, aged 5 years, and sentenced to 3 months' R. I. The maximum sentence prescribed for the offence is life imprisonment or 10 years, R. I. but the Magistrate awarded the ridiculously inadequate sentence in view of the 'tender age' of the culprit. It was completely kept out of sight that the victim was aged 5 years and that the accused had acted brutally in forcing penetration which resulted in injuries to anus and the area around the anus. As a result of these injuries the trouser taken from the person of Naushad was found to be stained with blood. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the accused had committed a heinous offence and deserved exemplary punishment but declined to enhance the sentence in the view that the reason for which the Magistrate had awarded him lenient sentence was not perverse. There is a sentence in the judgment of the High Court "The enhancement of sentence at this stage is not called for as the accused has already undergone the sentence." Could it be that the learned Judge thought that the sentence…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492