2025 P Cr. L J 1494
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
RAB NAWAZ ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 524 and Murder Reference No. 14 of 2023, decided on 4th March,
2025.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 376 ---Anti -Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021), S. 17 ---Rape, sexual
abuse of minor ---Appreciation of evidence ---Delay of eight days in lodging the FIR ---
Scope ---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the
complainant ---In the case in hand the occurrence of subjecting the minor girl to sexual
intercourse was said to have taken place on 06.04.2022 between 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 pm and the matter was reported at 7:30 p.m., on 14.04.2022; hence there was a delay of almost eight days ---However, the fact that the modesty of a minor girl was violated by
sexual assault made understandable the apprehension of the victim and her family in
approaching the police immediately ---Delay in reporting the crime to the police in respect
of an offence involving a person's honor and reputation and which society might have viewed unsympathetically could prey on the minds of a victim and her family and deter
them to go to the police ---In the present case, the delay had plausibly been explained---
Victim was takento the District Headquarters Hospital where the Female Medical Officer was absent at that time and victim was then taken to other hospital--- Crime scene was at a
considerable distance from the District Headquarters Hospital with no basic health amenities let along the road infrastructure ---No source of transport with the parents of the
victim girl being poor who were daily wage laborers ---Minor girl was shifted to the
hospital by witnesses, therefore, in such a situation it was very obvious that even if the report had been lodged with a delay, it would not bring complications and was otherwise not beneficial for an accused who had been charged with the offence the punishment of which would entail to death penalty or imprisonment for life ---Circumstances established
that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life ---With the said modification in the sentence of appellant, the
appeal was dismissed.
Zahid and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 590 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 376 ---Anti -Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021), S. 17---Rape, sexual
abuse of minor ---Appreciation of evidence ---Medical evidence ---Scope ---Accused was
charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant ---As per statement
of Female Medical Officer, not onlymere penetration to the hymen was found, but it was observed by said witness that there was excessive vaginal bleeding ---Although Female
Medical Officer had been cross -examined to the extent that she did not examine the said
victim ---Said witness was neither relative to the complainant nor inimical to the accused,
therefore, it was impossible to say that she issued a false medical certificate ---Even
otherwise, the said witness was cross -examined by the defence but failed to impeach her
credibility ---Potency test was also performed on the accused/appellant and the report
produced by Medical Officer confirmed that the accused was an adult well oriented in time, place and a person whose age was mentioned as twenty -eight years ---Accused was arrested
eight days after the occurrence--- Under such circumstances, no seminal material was found
on the Shalwar of the accused and it was, therefore, not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis ---Rape having been established, was it then necessary to conduct a
DNA test to determine that the semen retrieved from the victim's body and shalwar was of
the appellant ---However, it was not necessary that such DNA testing was required under
the circumstances ---Moreover, DNA testing was not a requirement by the law ---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the death
sentence was altered to imprisonment for life--- With the said modification in the sentence
of appellant, the appeal was dismissed.
Farooq Ahmed v. The State PLD 2020 SC 313 rel.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 376 ---Anti -Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021), S. 17 ---Rape, sexual
abuse of minor ---Appreciation of evidence ---Statement of minor witness/victim ---Scope --
-Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant ---
Victim deposed before the trial Court that she went to the house of the accused and there
the mother of the accused was not in the house and there the accused committed rape/zina with her and thereafter threatened her not to tell anyone about the occurrence or
otherwise he would kill her ---Thereafter victim was taken to Hospital where the Female
Medical Officer was not available and the accused took her to the other hospital ---On the
next date, parents and uncle of victim reached Hospital where the Medical Officer told
them that zina had been committed with the victim ---At the time of recording her
statement, the age of victim was 8/9 years, however before recording her statement, Trial
Court had asked the victim a number of questions to establish whether she was competent
to testify and recorded that she was quite mature and had answered the questions
satisfactory, hence she was declared a competent witness, therefore, the victim testified
before the Court ---In the witness box the minor witness furnished graphic details of the
occurrence and she was cross -examined by the defense at full length, but she remained
consistent inter -se and supplemented in a minute the detail of the incident qua time, date,
place, mode and manner of the occurrence, identity of the accused and his role for committing rape with her ---Statement of the victim was therefore, corroborated with the
statement of complainant that when he received information he reached the hospital and the victim told him about the occurrence ---There was no reason for the victim and the
complainant to falsely implicate/nominate the accused/appellant for the heinous crime, nor were any questions put to the witnesses in that regard ---Circumstances established
that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life ---With the said modification in the sentence of appellant, the
appeal was dismissed.
Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 rel.
(d) Criminal trial ---
----Child witness, evidence of ---Scope ---Child witness is not barred from entering the
witness box however it is the satisfaction of the trial Court, which is of crucial importance ---Child who also happens to be a victim of an offence is competent to testify
as a witness and the deposition would be worthy of reliance provided the Court is satisfied that he or she, as the case may be, is intelligent and understands the significance of entering the witness box ---Conviction can also be handed down placing reliance on the
sole testimony of a child witness, but as a rule of prudence, it is generally preferred that it should be corroborated by some other evidence so as to ensure the safe administration of justice.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 376 ---Anti -Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021), S. 17 ---Rape, sexual
abuse of minor ---Appreciation of evidence ---Sentence, quantum of ---Mitigating
circumstances ---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the
complainant ---Record showed some mitigating circumstances, firstly the FIR was lodged
with a delay of eight days and secondly there was sole testimony of the victim whose age at the time of testifying was 8/9 years ---Question of quantum of the sentence requi red
utmost attention and thoughtfulness on the part of the Court ---Thus, based on the
particular facts and circumstances of the case whilst exercising judicial discretion, High
Court converted the death penalty into imprisonment for life ---With the said modification
in the sentence of appellant, the appeal was dismissed.
Ghual Mohy- ud-Din v. State 2014 SCMR 1034; Muhammad Riaz and another v. The
State and another 2007 SCMR 1413; Muhammad Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 709 and Fayyaz alias Fiazi v. The State 2017 SCMR 204 rel.
Saifullah Durrani for Appellant.
Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th February, 2025.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---Appellant Rab Nawaz son of Muhammad Ibrahim
allegedly committed rape of Mst. Asma, daughter of Muhammad Ameen, aged 8/9 years at the area of Sardar Muhammad Hassan Goth Phor Liyari District Hub within the precincts of PS Liyari on 6th April 2022 between 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm. For the commission of the said
offence, the appellant was booked in FIR No. 06 of 2022. registered at the said police station
on 14.04.2022 at 7:30 pm. After a regular trial, the appellant was convicted vide judgment
dated 31 October 2023 ('the impugned judgment') passed by learned Special Judge Anti -
Rape/JBV (the trial Court') under Section 376 P.P.C. in accordance with Schedule -II of the
Anti-Rape Act 2021 and sentenced to death to be hanged by the neck till his death subject to
confirmation is by this court and to pay a fine of Rs.200,000/ -. In case of non- payment of
fine, he was to further undergo six months' S.I. He was also directed to pay Rs.500,000/ - to
the victim girl under section 17 of Anti Rape Act, 2021 and in default thereof, the same was directed to be realized as arrears of land revenue.
Being aggrieved from the impugned judgment the appellant filed Criminal Appeal
No. 524 of 2023 whereas the trial court has sent Murder Reference No. 14 of 2023 for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence.
Since both the cases are arising out of one and the same judgment, therefore, both the
cases are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is a result of
misreading and mis -appreciation of material available on record; that the FIR was lodged
with delay without any explanation; that the case of prosecution is lacking independent corroboration as only one eye -witness has produced and on the basis of the said solitary
statement conviction cannot be sustained; that the prosecution has failed to produce any iota of evidence connecting the appellant with commission of alleged crime; that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish charge through concrete or solid evidence, thus the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state strongly opposed the arguments so
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence; that prosecution's case is supported by the medical evidence; that the impugned judgment of the trial court is based upon a proper appraisal of material available on record.
4. Arguments advanced from both the sides have been heard. We have also minutely
gone through the record available on file with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the case in hand the occurrence of subjecting the minor girl Mst. Asma to sexual
intercourse is said to have taken place on 06.04.2022 between 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 pm, and the matter was reported at 7:30 p.m., on 14.04.2022; hence there is a delay of almost eight days. However, the fact that the modesty of a minor girl was violated by sexual assault makes
understandable the apprehension of the victim and her family in approaching the police
immediately. Delay in reporting the crime to the police in respect of an offence involving a person's honor and reputation and which society may view unsympathetically could prey on the minds of a victim and her family and deter them to go to the police. In the present case, the delay has plausibly been explained. The victim Mst. Asma when appeared before the
court as PW- 2 deposed that upon her arrival at the house of the accused, the mother of the
accused was away at Winder. The accused committed rape with her and threatened her of her
life to ensure silence but took her to the District Headquarters Hospital at Uthal where the lady doctor was absent at that time and she was then taken to Hub. The crime scene is at a considerable distance from the District Headquarters. Hospital with no basic health amenities let along the road infrastructure. The victim girl was shifted to Uthal and subsequently to Hub. There was no source of transport with the parents of the victim girl being poor who are daily wage laborers. The girl was shifted to the hospital by PW -3 and PW -4, therefore, in
such a situation it is very obvious that even if the report has been lodged with a delay, it will not bring complications and is otherwise not beneficial for an accused who has been charged
with the offence the punishment of which would entail to the death penalty or imprisonment
for life. In the case titled Zahid and another v. The State (2020 SCMR 590), the August
Supreme Court has observed and held as follows: -
"Undoubtedly, the FIR was registered after a day of the crime having been committed, however, the fact that the modesty of a married woman was violated by sexual assault makes understandable the apprehension of the victim and her family in approaching
the police immediately. Delay in reporting the crime to the police in respect of an
offence involving a person's honour and reputation and which society may view
unsympathetically could prey on the minds of a victim and her family and deter them to go to the police. In the case of Hamid Khan v. State a delay of three days in
reporting the crime to the police was considered immaterial".
6. In order to constitute the offence of rape, it is necessary that there shall be
penetration. In this case, Mst. Asma, the victim who is of very tender age likely to touch nine (09) years was examined by the female Medical Officer (PW- 8) Dr. Najia Hameed Lady
Medical Officer at Jam Ghulam Qadir Hospital Hub on 07.04.2022 at 12:41 am. Her statement would reveal that "excessive vaginal bleeding" "Under anesthesia, hymen ruptured, a crescent shaped tear was present in the posterior vaginal wall, which was starched out".
7. In view of the statement of PW -8 it has absolutely without any coloring being found
that the minor girl Mst. Asma was subjected to sexual intercourse. Not only mere penetration to the hymen was found, but it was observed by PW -8 Dr. Najia Hameed that there was
excessive vaginal bleeding, although PW -8 has been cross -examined to the extent that she
did not examine the said victim. PW -8 is neither relative to the complainant nor inimical to
the accused, therefore, it is impossible to say that she issued a false medical certificate. Even otherwise, the said witness was cross -examination by the learned counsel but failed to
impeach her credibility. A potency test was also performed on the accused/appellant and the report (Ex.P/6 -A) produced by PW -6 Dr. Suneel Kumar Medical Officer at District
Headquarter Hospital, Uthal, confirmed that the accused was an adult well oriented to time, place and a person whose age is mentioned as twenty -eight years.
8. The accused was arrested on 14.04.2022 eight days after the occurrence. Under such
circumstances, no seminal material was found on the Shalwar of the accused and it was, therefore, not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
9. The rape having been established, was it then necessary to conduct a DNA test to
determine that the semen retrieved from the victim's body and shalwar was of the appellant. We do not think that such DNA testing was required under the circumstances. Moreover, DNA testing is not a requirement by the law. The reliance is placed on the case title Farooq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 313), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: -
"7. The rape having being established, was it then necessary to conduct a DNA test to determine that the semen retrieved from the victim's body and shalwar was of the petitioner. We do not think that such DNA testing was required under the circumstances. Moreover, DNA testing is not a requirement of law. In Shakeel's case (above) it was held (in paragraph 9), that:
It is well- established by now that "omission of scientific test of semen status and
grouping of sperms is neglect on the part of prosecution which cannot materially
affect the other evidence." In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in case titled Haji Ahmad v. State (1975 SCMR 69)...
In the above cited case of Haji Ahmad v. State (1975) SCMR 69) the father had raped his step -daughter and his conviction was sustained by this Court in the absence of a
DNA test; the Trial Court had relied on the girl's testimony, chemical examiner's report confirming existence of semen on vaginal swabs taken from her and the medico- legal
report showing her to have been sexually molested. Similarly, this Court in the case of Irfan Ali Sher v. State (Jail Petition No. 324/2019, decided on 17 April 2020) upheld a conviction under section 376 P.P.C in the absence of a DNA test. Rejecting the petitioner's argument that 'DNA report was not sought this Court held (in paragraph 3). that:
As regards the semen not being sent for DNA forensic determination with a view to link it with the perpetrator is not a requirement of law.
It is also not desirable that we should impose additional conditions to prove a charge of rape, or of attempted rape, and to do so would be a disservice to victims, which may also have the effect of enabling predators and perpetrators. However, there may
be cases where an accused's DNA is retrieved for forensic determination to establish
his guilt.
10. The fate of the case primarily hinges upon the statement of the victim Mst. Asma
(PW -2). She deposed before the trial court that the date was sixth her mother went for
grazing goats. She further stated that she went to the house of the accused Rab Nawaz and there the mother of the accused was not in the house and had gone to Winder and there the
accused committee rape/zina with her and thereafter threatened her not to tell anyone about
the occurrence or otherwise he will kill her. Thereafter she was taken to Uthal Hospital where the lady doctor was not available and the accused took her to the hospital at Hub. On
the next date, her parents and uncle Shera reached Hub Hospital where the doctor told them
that zina had been committed to her. At the time of recording her statement, the age of PW-
2 was 8/9 years, however before recording her statement the judge of the trial court had asked the victim (PW -2) a number of questions to establish whether she was competent to
testify and recorded that she was quite mature and have answered the questions about satisfactory; hence she was declared a competent witness; therefore, the victim (PW- 2)
testified before the court.
11. In the witness box the above witness furnished graphic details of the occurrence and
she was cross -examined by the defense at full length, but she remained consistent inter -se
and supplemented in a minute the detail of the incident qua time, date, place, mode and manner of the occurrence, identity of the occurrence and his role for committing rape with her. The statement of the above witness was therefore, corroborated with the statement of PW-1/complainant that when he received information he reached the hospital and the victim
told him about the occurrence. There was no reason for the victim and the complainant to falsely implicate/nominate the accused/appellant for the heinous crime, nor were any questions put to the witnesses in this regard.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid great stress on the reliability of the victim's
testimony because, as argued by him she was a child witness, and she could have been tutored or influenced by elders. He has strenuously argued that it would not be safe to rely on the testimony of the child witness. By now, the law relating to the competence of the child witness to depose in a criminal case and its evidentiary value is well settled. It would, therefore, be relevant to discuss the precedent law in this tegard. Article 3 of the Qanun -e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order of 1984") contemplates that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from
understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions,
by tender or extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same nature.
13. In the case titled "Muhammad Jamal and others v. The State" 1997 SCMR 1595, the
apex Court found the child witness's testimony as inspiring and credible and upheld the
conviction because it was supported by medical evidence. In the case titled "Mst. Razia
alias Jia v. The State" 2009 SCMR 1428, the august Supreme Court upheld the conviction handed down, inter alia, on the basis of ocular testimony of two child witnesses. The apex Court had observed that the trial Court had taken all possible and due steps to judge the level of intelligence and maturity of the child witness before recording her statements
because they had given consistent accounts of the occurrence and the participation of their
mother, i.e. the convicted accused. It was further observed that this ocular evidence had
derived strength and corroboration from other evidence. The august Supreme Court, exercising its Shariat appellate jurisdiction, has observed and held in the case titled "Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State" 2006 SCMR 1042 as follows: -
"It has also been rightly observed by the learned Federal Shariat Court that conviction could be based on the solitary statement of the victim provided the same is capable of implicit reliance and is corroborated by any other piece of evidence if so available in the case."
14. In the case titled "Mushtaq Ahmed and another v. The State" 2007 SCMR 473, the
August Supreme Court, exercising its Shariat appellate jurisdiction, has observed and held as follows: -
"It is consistent view of this Court that in rape cases mere statement of the victim is sufficient to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence in case the statement of the victim inspires confidence."
15. In the case titled "Ulfat Hussain v. The State" 2010 SCMR 247 the apex Court held
that although in principle a conviction could be based on the testimony of an intelligent and
understanding child witness but it is always preferred to adopt the settled principle of prudence and rule of care attached to the sole testimony of a child witness despite the latter's understanding and intelligence.
16. It is, therefore, obvious from the above discussion relating to the precedent law, that a
child witness is not barred from entering the witness box. It is the satisfaction of the trial Court, which is of crucial importance. A child who also happens to be a victim of an offence is competent to testify as a witness, and the deposition would be worthy of reliance provided the Court is satisfied that he or she, as the case may be, is intelligent and understands the significance of entering the witness box. A conviction can also be handed down placing reliance on the sole testimony of a child witness, but as a rule of prudence, it is generally preferred that it should be corroborated by some other evidence so as to ensure the safe administration of justice.
17. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the learned trial court, for good
reasons and after adopting precautionary measures, was satisfied that the victim (PW- 2) was
competent to testify and that her deposition could be relied upon. Her testimony remained unshaken despite being subjected to protracted cross -examination. The medical evidence and
testimony of PW -1 lent support and corroborated the victim's plea. There is nothing on
record to even remotely indicate that the victim or the other witnesses had any reason for falsely implicating the appellant.
18. Having looked into the evidence from four corners, we are of the considered view
that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant dia through cogent, reliable and confidence -inspiring evidence. All the above witnesses, including the
victim herself, are quite natural and straightforward raising their finger towards none else but the appellant being a sole perpetrator. Further, it has been observed that the appellant has failed to take any specific plea regarding his false imp lication. In his examination
under section 342 Cr.P.C., he simply denied the questions put to him, whereas he has also not recorded his own oath statement and failed to produce any single witness in his defense. While to the contrary, the prosecution has produced ocular evidence supported by the medical evidence, which is fully corroborating with each other on all counts, thus, the evidence so produced cannot be thrown aside merely on the basis of the bald denial of the appellant. It has also been observed that in such like cases prestige of family, risk and
honor are involved as the child of someone was defamed for the whole of her life; hence it is not possible that a person any falsely involve any innocent person in such like heinous crimes and that too without the existence of previous enmity or grudge. Undoubtedly,
where a young child could be defamed for her whole life, no elder would like to involve
their own child, who has to face the society for the whole of her/his life as well as to an innocent person just for nothing. In such like cases of a single accused substitution is always considered to be a rare phenomenon. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
19. Now, the moot question for determination would be the quantum of sentence to be
awarded to the appellant to meet the ends of justice. The trial court while adjudicating the matter has inflicted the sentence of death upon the appellant. We have noted some mitigating circumstances, firstly the FIR was lodged with a delay of eight days and secondly there was sole testimony of the victim whose age at the time of testifying was 8/9 years. It is well -
recognized principle by now that the question of quantum of the sentence requires utmost attention and thoughtfulness on the part of the court.
20. Thus, we take guidance from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ghual Mohy -ud-Din v. State (2014 SCMR 1034) where it was held that where the
judges entertain some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment at P.1043 Paras 20 and 21 in the following terms;
"20. Albeit, in a chain of case -law the view held is that normal penalty is death
sentence for murder, however, once the Legislature has provided for awarding alternative sentence of life imprisonment, it would be difficult to hold that in all the cases of murder, the death penalty is a normal one and shall ordinarily be awarded. If the intent of the Legislature was to take away the discretion of the Court, then it
would have omitted from clause (b) of section 302, P.P.C. the alternative sentence of life imprisonment. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the two sentences are alternative to one another, however, awarding one or the other sentence shall essentially depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be multiple factors to award the death sentence for the offence of murder and equal number of factors would be there not to award the same but instead a life imprisonment. It is a fundamental principle of Islamic Jurisprudence on criminal law to do justice with mercy, being the attribute of Allah Almighty but on the earth the same has been delegated and bestowed upon the Judges, administering justice in criminal cases, therefore, extra degree of care and caution is required to be observed by the Judges while determining the quantum of sentence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of particular case/cases.
21. A single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient to put on guard the Judge not to award the penalty of death but life imprisonment. No clear guideline, in this regard can be laid down because facts and circumstances of one cases differ from the other, however, it becomes the essential obligation of the Judge in awarding one or the other sentence to apply his judicial mind with a deep thought to the facts of a Particular case. If the Judge Judges entertain some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment, lest an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows. So it is better to respect the human life, as far as possible, rather to put it at end, by assessing the evidence, facts and circumstances of a particular murder case, under which it was committed."
Guidance in this regard is also sought from the ratio dicidendi laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State and another (2007 SCMR 1413) wherein it was held as under:
"No doubt normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl -i-Amd provided under
law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case."
A similar view was affirmed in the case of Muhammad Sharif v. The State (PLD 2009
SC 709) wherein it was held as under:
"It has been seen and observed from the perusal of the various proceedings in relation to section 302 of P.P.C in particular its clause (b) that there is a choice and
discretion with the Court to inflict punishment "with death or imprisonment for life
as tazir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
Reliance is also placed in the case of Fayyaz alias Fiazi v. The State (2017) SCMR
204) and Rehmat Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 2034).
21. Thus, taking guidance from the above mentioned Supreme Court authority and
based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case whilst exercising our judicial discretion, we hereby modify the sentence in the impugned judgment to the accused whereby he has been convicted under section 376 P.P.C in accordance with Schedule -II of
the Anti -Rape Act 2021 and sentenced to death and alter his conviction and sentence to
imprisonment for life. However, the amount of compensation and sentences in default are maintained with the benefit of section 382 -B Cr.P.C is extended to the appellant. The
impugned judgment of the trial court is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the sentence of appellant, the Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2023 is dismissed.
The Murder Reference No. 14 of 2023 is answered in NEGATIVE.
JK/44/Bal. Sentence modified.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.