2019 PLP 17 (YLRN)
Mst. RAHEEMAN and others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 17 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Panhwar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RAHEEMAN and others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal trial, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 17 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal trial, (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 17 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: Salahuddin Panhwar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 17 (YLRN) (Mst. RAHEEMAN and others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hameedullah Dahri and Nazeer Ahmed Bhatti for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 364 & 364-A
Kidnapping in order to murder and kidnapping a person under the age of fourteen
Sentence, reduction in
Accused persons were convicted under S.364-A, P.P.C. and one of them was sentenced to death
Plea of accused persons was that as per evidence of abductee, the appellants forcibly took her away but she did not state that any sexual intercourse was committed with her and that her medical evidence was in negative
Factum of non-commission of rape was not disputed
No other ingredient with regard to compelling the abductee for zina or selling her was available except the allegation of abduction
Awarding of conviction required establishment of offence but it did not necessarily require the court to award maximum punishment rather court should examine gathering circumstances so as to justify maximum sentence
Comparative reading of Ss. 364 & 364-A, P. P. C. made it clear that if kidnapping of any person under fourteen years of age was for murder, grievous hurt, slavery or to the lust of any person only then the act of kidnapping fell within the meaning S.364-A, P.P.C. else same remained confined to S.364, P.P.C.
Prosecution did not claim proof of other required ingredients except that of abduction/ kidnapping hence, conviction under S.364-A, P.P.C. was not sustainable
Sentence of appellants was reduced to seven years, in circumstances.
Maximum sentence
Awarding of conviction required establishment of offence but it did not necessarily require the court to award maximum punishment rather court should examine gathering circumstances so as to justify maximum sentence.
Judgment & Decree
At the outset, learned counsel for appellants contends that the judgment of the trial court is harsh; one of the appellant has been convicted for death sentence in spite of that fact that there is no evidence of rape. As per evidence of abductee the accused persons forcibly took her away but she did not state in her evidence that any sexual intercourse was committed with her as well medical evidence is negative. After arguing at length learned counsel for appellants agreed that they would not press the instant appeal on merits, if the sentence is reduced up to 07 years. They further submit that the appellants are first offenders and have been implicated falsely in this case; ingredients of Section 364-A with regard to providing punishment with full dose are not available hence quantum of lesser punishment may be considered. Learned DPG extended his no objection on the above proposal. Perusal of evidence of abductee and the case file including medical evidence it transpires that factum of non-commission of rape is not disputed. Except the allegation of abduction no other ingredient with regard to compelling her for zina or selling her is available. The purpose of providing different punishments for same offence even by the legislature is apparently with some object. Awarding of conviction shall always require establishing of the offence but it shall not necessarily require the court to award maximum punishment rather the Court shall always be obliged to examine gathering circumstances so as to justify. maximum sentence. A comparative reading of the , two provisions i.e. Sections 364 and 364-A, P.P.C. would make it clear that if kidnapping of any person under age (fourteen)) is for murder; grievous hurt; slavery or to lust of any person etc, only then the act of kidnapping shall fall within meaning of Section 364-A else it (kidnapping) will remain confine to Section 364, P.P.C. only. In the instant matter, the prosecution does not claim proof of other required ingredients except that of abduction/kidnapping hence conviction under Section 364-A, P.P.C. legally cannot sustain. Even otherwise, the section 364-A, P.P.C. itself provides a legal punishment i.e. 'shall not be less than seven years'. Thus, prima facie the maximum punishment, so awarded to appellants, is not justifiable. The courts are required to examine the facts and circumstances of the case as well nature of allegation and circumstances of the appellant as well while awarding punishment. Admittedly lesser punishment is 07 years; hence we feel that this is a case of lesser punishment thereby impugned judgment is modified and sentence is reduced from death / life to 07 years including fine with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Superintendent Central Prison, Hyderabad shall calculate the remission earned by the appellants during trial and during pendency of appeal and on expiry of 07 years punishment and they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case. SA/R-31/Sindh Sentence reduced.