Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOGHIS ASGHAR VS Respondent: STATE
1988 S C M R 1847
1988 S C M R 1847
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MOGHIS ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition No.48‑R of 1988, decided on .4th July, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 20‑3‑1988 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1987):
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑
‑‑‑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].
Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th July, 1988.
ORDER
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.