1993 PLP 84 (MLD)

Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. State Mrs. Rashida Patel for Appellant (in Crl. A. No.41‑K of 1992). J.M. Hayat Qureshi for the State. Habib Ahmad for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1992. These are three Criminal Appeals, bearing Nos.39‑K, 40‑K and 41‑K of 1992. The first two appeals have been preferred by Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, who has been convicted under section 494, P.P.C. read with section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance") and sentenced to four years' R.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000, in default R.I. for six months by two separate judgments dated 15‑4‑1992 by the III Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi. The third appeal has been filed by Mst. Shamim Akhtar who has been convicted by the same learned Judge under the same provision of law viz. section 494, P.P.C. read with section 10(2) of the said Ordinance, and sentenced likewise.

2. Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for the appellant Iftikhar Ahmad Khan and Mrs. Rashida Patel, learned counsel for the appellant Mst. Shamim Akhtar, have filed two separate applications whereby they do not challenge the conviction but pray for reduction of sentence from four years' R.I. to three years' R.I.

3. Mr. Habib Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the request of reduction of sentence and submits that the sentence, awarded by the learned trial Judge being legal, should be maintained.

4. Mrs. Rashida Patel, learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Shamim Akhtar states at the bar that a child has born to Mst. Shamim Akhtar as a result of cohabitation between Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Iftikhar Ahmad Khan.All the counsel agree that the age of the child must be about one year. The child, being the victim of the circumstances, is also in jail with his mother Mst. J Shamim Akhtar.

5. Looking at the case from humanitarian angle and considering the social background of the case, while maintaining the conviction, as not challenged, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced from four years' R.I. to three years' R.I. The other sentences, as awarded by the learned trial Court, will remain intact. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. as awarded by the learned trial Court, will also remain intact.

6. The two applications are disposed of accordingly and the three appeals, with the above modification in sentence stand dismissed.

7. In view of the above, Suo Moto Notices,, bearing Nos.10‑K, 11‑K and 12‑K of 1992 stand discharged. N.H.Q./744/F.S.C. Sentence reduced.