1996 PCr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 377‑‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑‑Appeal was not pressed on merits and only reduction in sentence was prayed for‑‑‑Accused who was a teenaged boy with no previous criminal background was a labourer and only bread earner of the family and was not enjoying good health‑‑‑Prosecution did not oppose reduction in sentence‑‑‑Sentence of seven years' R.I. awarded to accused by Trial Court was reduced to two years and six months' R.I. in circumstances with fine and benefit of S.382‑B, Cr.P.C. Sheikh Khizar Hayat for Appellant. Muhammad Anwar Dhulan for the State. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1995. Muneer Ahmad alias Munna convict, filed this appeal to assail the judgment, dated 2‑2‑1995, of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 377, P.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees five thousand or in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was not extended the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. as there is no mention of the same in the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence on record and submitted that the learned trial Court having disbelieved the prosecution case with regard to the charge under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, should not have convicted the appellant on the sole testimony of Muhammad Altaf, victim, by saying that the said statement has been corroborated by the Chemical Examiner's Report and the medical evidence. He added that these reports do not point out the person who had allegedly committed the sodomy. He urged that the testimony of the alleged victim alone in the circumstances should not have been believed. Later he did not press the appeal on merits and submitted that interest of justice will stand satisfied if the minimum sentence provided in the law is awarded to the appellant. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The question of sentence has been pressed lastly with the further submission that the appellant is a teenaged boy without any previous criminal background. It was pointed out that he is a labourer and only bread earner of the family and otherwise not enjoying good health. The State Counsel has not opposed the plea of reduction in sentence. In the circumstances noted above I am persuaded to reduce the sentence from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to two years and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees three thousand or in default to further undergo three month's' rigorous imprisonment. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is also allowed to the appellant. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal stands disposed of. N.H.Q./1017/FSC Sentence reduced