2005 P Cr (PLP)
SAEED alias PHULOO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariut Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED alias PHULOO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariut Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (SAEED alias PHULOO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 377
Trial Court examined two Doctors who had examined accused, victim minor boy, complainant, two other witnesses and Investigating Officer
All said witnesses had supported prosecution case and their evidence appeared to be confidence inspiring
Counsel for accused had submitted that in view of evidence on record, it was not a case of acquittal, but he had submitted that in view of young age of accused, reduction in sentence would be in the interest of justice
State counsel conceded to reduction in sentence
Sentence of fourteen years awarded to accused by Trial Court was reduced to ten years R.I.
Punishment of fine and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was maintained.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. RABBANI, J.
On 15-3-2002 one Naazir Hussain lodged F.I.R. at Jaffar Abad Police Station Nasir Abad, Balochistan, about commission of sodomy by the present appellant with son of the complainant aged 5 years. After investigation, the present appellant was sent up for trial before Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 377, P.P.C. He convicted the present appellant accordingly and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for fourteen years with a. fine of Rs.50,
000. In case of default he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for another one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. has been extended. This conviction and sentence has been challenged by way of the present appeal.
2. The record shows that the trial Court examined two doctors who had medically examined the convict/appellant, and the victim minor boy, complainant Naazir Hussain, two other witnesses Dad Muhammad and Inayatullah and the Investigating Officer. All these witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their evidence appears to be confidence inspiring. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge.
3. Mr. Saleheen Mughal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence on record, this is not a case of acquittal. He submitted that in view of young age of the appellant a reduction in the sentence would be in the interest of justice. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, learned counsel for the State concedes for reduction in sentence. Section 377, P.P.C. provides two punishments viz. imprisonment for life and imprisonment of either description for a term, which shall not be less than two years or more than ten years, and fine. Thus, the law requires that if the sentence is not imprisonment for life, it cannot be more than ten years. Accordingly, the sentence of fourteen years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to ten years' R.I. The punishment of fine and. benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is maintained. With this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./60/FSC Order accordingly.