Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 353 of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1985.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑6‑1985, passed in Crl. Rev. 828/71).

-----S. 376‑Rape of a minor girl of about 9 years‑Sentence‑Suo motu enhancement of sentence by High Court from 2 years' R. 1. to 8 years' R. I.‑Only contention raised in support of reduction of sentence being old age of accused‑Held, old age of accused instead of being a mitigating circumstance would go against him, because of fact that accused was of advanced age for he was expected to be more responsible at that age‑Sao motu enhancement of sentence by High Court maintained‑Exemplary and deterrent punishments. desired to be awarded by Supreme Court.[Sentence-----Age].

Accused committed rape on a little girl aged about 9 years, who was found bleeding from her private parts and had also injuries on her face, described as contusion marks 1" x 1" on each of her cheeks. On examina tion the doctor found that the hymen was ruptured and had tears and the private part was swollen even after four days. The trial Court convicted him under section 376, P. P. C. and sentenced him to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 (6 months in default of payment of fine).

The High Court issued notice to accused sub motu to show cause as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. High Court after issuing such notice enhanced the sentence of imprisonment from 2 years' R. I. to 8 years' R. I. and the sentence of fine from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000 in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further R. I. for one year.

The only contention raised by accused in support of his prayer for reduction of sentence was that he was very old instead of being a mitigating circumstance the fact that accused was of advanced age goes against him, because he is expected to be more responsible at that age. The act done by him was not only cruel but also deplorable. Courts always try to peruse evidence against every accused with extreme care and are liberal in giving benefit of doubt wherever there is the slightest apprehension that the prosecution case might not be true. But once an offence is established against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, exemplary and deterrent punishments should be awarded.

When people convicted of heinous crimes are being let off with minor sentences, the impression goes round that such crimes can be committed with impunity. It might even appear to the public at large as if crime is being patronised. This creates a sense of dismay and insecurity in the peace‑loving and law‑abiding citizens. Courts of law while punishing such convicts should award deterrent sentences so that it is manifest that society as well as the State do not countenance such crimes and react strongly through Courts of law.

Muhammad Amin v. The State P L D 1984 S C 343 mentioned.

Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 15th October, 1985.

Nathu Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 8‑6‑1985, whereby it suo motu enhanced the sentence of the petitioner from 2 years' R. I. to 8 years' R. I., in a case under section 376, P. P. C.

2. The facts of the prosecution case, briefly, are that Nathu Khan petitioner accused committed rape on Mst. Parveen, a little girl aged about as years, who was found bleeding from her private parts and had also injuries on her face, described as contusion marks 1" x 1" on each of her cheeks. On examination the lady doctor found that the hymen was ruptured and had tears and the private part was swollen even after four days. The trial, Court convicted him under section 376, P. P. C., and sentenced him to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 (6 months in default of payment or fine). On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment from 3 years' R. I. to 2 years' R. I. Nathu was still not satisfied and filed a criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court issued notice to him suo Motu to show cause as to why his sentence should not be enhanced.

3. After hearing the petitioner's counsel the High Court enhanced) the sentence of imprisonment from 2 years' R. I. to 8 years' R. I. and that sentence of fine from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000, in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further R. I. for one year.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by him in support of his prayer for reduction sentence is that he is very old. We are of the view that instead of being ; mitigating circumstance the fact that he is of advanced age goes against him, because he is expected to be more responsible at that age. The act done by him was not only cruel but also deplorable. Courts always try to peruse evidence against every accused with extreme care and are) liberal in giving benefit of doubt wherever there is the slightest apprehen sion that the prosecution case might not be true. But once an offence is established against the accused beyond‑ any reasonable doubt, as in the present case, and .all the appellate as well as the revisional Courts uphold that finding, exemplary and deterrent punishments should be awarded, as observed by this Court in Muhammad Amin v. The State (PLD 1984 SC 343).

4‑A. Each time one reads in the media about the people convicted of heinous crimes being let off with minor sentences, the impression goes round that such crimes can be committed with impunity. It might ever, appear to the public at large as if crime is being patronised. This creates a sense of dismay and insecurity in the peace‑loving and law‑abiding citizens. We are, therefore, of the view that Courts of law while punishing such convicts should award deterrent sentences so that it as manifest that society as well as the State do not countenance such crimes and react strongly, through Courts of law.

5. We respectfully endorse the action of the learned High Court in enhancing the sentence of the petitioner in exercise of its suo motu power.

With these observations the petition is dismissed.

M. B. A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.