1988 PLP 1729 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1729 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1729 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1729 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1729 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riazuddin Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑--‑ -‑‑‑S. 377‑‑Quantum of sentence‑‑Accused, 13/14 years old at time of occurrence having undergone agony of criminal trial for 2 years‑‑Appellate Court enhancing sentence of one year R.I. to 5 years' R.I: Sentence reduced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment in circumstances. Dr. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State. Khaliq Ahmad Chohan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ramzan petitioner was tried by Assistant Commissioner/M.S.30 Bahawalnagar under section 377, P.P.C. on the charge of sodomy with Abdul Hameed complainant.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced seven witnesses. The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He produced two witnesses in defence. The trial Court convicted him under section 377, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year R.1 and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.
3. The petitioner filed appeal against the conviction and sentence. The complainant also filed revision for the enhancement of sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, enhanced the sentence from one year R.1. to 5 years' R.1. and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is harsh and excessive. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have considered the question of sentence with care. The occurrence took place in the year 1982 and the petitioner has undergone agony of criminal trial; his appeal was dismissed in the year 1984; that he was 13/14 years of age at the time of occurrence and that he was awarded one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 by the trial Court, so the sentence of five years' R.I. is reduced to two years' R.I. The fine of Rs.2,000 and the sentence in default thereof is maintained. The petitioner will surrender himself before the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar within seven days from today. On his failure to do so, the learned Assistant Commissioner will get him arrested and sent to jail to serve the sentence. SA./M‑937/L Sentence reduced.