Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has emphasized the utility of deterrent punishment in criminal cases, holding that such punishment maintains balance with the gravity of the wrong committed by a person and also sets an example for others.
“The purpose behind the imposition of a sentence is twofold. First, it creates an atmosphere that deters people who have a propensity for crime and second, it serves as a means of reforming the offender,” said a 13-page judgment authored by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim.
Justice Ibrahim was part of a three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, which upheld the death sentence of a person involved in the murder and rape of a five- to six-year-old girl.
The judgment observed that the trial court awarded the death sentence to the petitioner-convict under Sections 302(b), 364-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the same was later confirmed by the High Court.
“The kidnapping of a minor girl aged five to six years by the petitioner-convict in broad daylight from an open bazaar, then committing rape and sodomy on her inside his house, murdering her, placing her body in a sack and throwing it away, are acts of such brutality and cruelty that any violation of a leniency and a reward would be tantamount to such a menace and a reward to society.”
The judgment observed that while the accused is the preferred illegitimate child, the court owes a duty to the society and to the legal heirs of the victim.
“The punishment awarded to an offender should be such as to act as a deterrent to the commission of offences. Conceptually, a punishment is imposed on an offender on the basis of retribution, deterrence or reformation.”
It said that deterrent punishment is not only to maintain the balance with the seriousness of the wrong done by a person, but also to set an example for others as a preventive measure to reform society.
“The concept of lesser punishment in the law is an attempt to reform an individual criminal. But in the present case, where the petitioner-convict abducted a minor girl, committed rape and sodomy and then murdered her, no leniency should be shown.”
“The death sentence would create deterrence in the society as no other person would dare to commit such an offence.
“If in such cases a lenient view is taken, the peace, tranquility and harmony of society would be endangered and vandalism would prevail. Courts have been given a very wide discretion in matters of sentencing, which must be exercised judiciously,” the judgment said.
The court found that the prosecution had proved the kidnapping of the minor by the petitioner-convict, the commission of rape and sodomy on her and her subsequent murder through strong and credible last seen evidence and circumstantial evidence supported by medical evidence beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
The court observed that the cumulative effect of the evidence placed on record unmistakably leads to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances is complete and coherent, giving rise to a reasonable and irresistible inference that the petitioner committed the offense.
Every circumstance so established is consistent only with the hypothesis of petitioner-convict’s guilt and is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The court further observed that the petitioner-convict neither chose to appear as a witness under Section 340(2) of the Act nor adduced evidence in his defence.
“His mere denial in the statement recorded under section 342 of the Code, being an unsworn statement and not subject to cross-examination, does not by itself rebut the prosecution’s evidence or discharge the burden placed on him when the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case.”
The court said that if the scene of the incident is one where no witness was available and the accused had exclusive knowledge of the incident, a simple denial by the accused would not be sufficient to nullify circumstantial evidence directly linking him with the commission of the offense charged.
“But the accused must make a plea which, when tested on the test of probabilities, warrants a reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” it said.
