1988 PLP 1847 (SCMR)
MOGHIS ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1847 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S.377--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence- Mitigating circumstance--College student aged 18 years committing sodomy on boy of 9 years found guilty and awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment--On appeal sentence reduced to 4 years--Order impugned--Plea for further reduction in sentence on ground of age and his being a college student, repelled--Petitioner having already been shown more t4an necessary leniency in reduction of sentence from 10 years to 4 years' R.I. by High Court, leave to appeal refused.--Age--Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MOGHIS ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1847 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1847 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S.377--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence- Mitigating circumstance--College student aged 18 years committing sodomy on boy of 9 years found guilty and awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment--On appeal sentence reduced to 4 years--Order impugned--Plea for further reduction in sentence on ground of age and his being a college student, repelled--Petitioner having already been shown more t4an necessary leniency in reduction of sentence from 10 years to 4 years' R.I. by High Court, leave to appeal refused.--Age--Sentence. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1847 (SCMR) (MOGHIS ASGHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 1988.
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 20-3-1988 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1987):
S.377--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Sentence- Mitigating circumstance--College student aged 18 years committing sodomy on boy of 9 years found guilty and awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment--On appeal sentence reduced to 4 years--Order impugned--Plea for further reduction in sentence on ground of age and his being a college student, repelled--Petitioner having already been shown more t4an necessary leniency in reduction of sentence from 10 years to 4 years' R.I. by High Court, leave to appeal refused.--[Age--Sentence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a convict for an offence under section 377, P.P.C. against dismissal of his appeal, with modification of sentence, by the High Court. The case against the petitioner aged more than 18 years is that he committed sodomy on a boy of 9 years of age. It was supported at the trial, by the victim and two other eye‑witnesses. There is also corroboratory evidence in the medical examination and the Chemical Examiner's report. Besides, there is no proof of any enmity of the complainant side against the petitioner; nor is any other material to falsely implicate him. The learned Courts below rightly held the petitioner guilty of the offence. That being so, for understandable reason, learned counsel laid main stress on the question of sentence on the ground of age of the petitioner and he being a college student. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner has already been shown more than necessary leniency in the reduction of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 10 years to 4 years by the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no merit in this petition. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused. M. I. /M‑534/S Petition dismissed.