Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has emphasized the usefulness of deterrent sanctions in criminal cases, saying that such sanctions maintain a balance with the seriousness of the wrong committed by a person and also set an example for others.
“The purpose behind the imposition of punishment is twofold. Firstly, it creates an atmosphere that deters people who have a tendency towards crime, and secondly, it serves as a means of reforming the offender,” said a 13-page judgment written 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 an individual involved in the murder and rape of a five- to six-year-old girl.
The judgment noted that the trial court awarded the death penalty to the petitioner convicted under Sections 302(b), 364-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and the same was later upheld by the High Court.
“The abduction of a minor girl aged five to six years by the petitioner-convict in broad daylight from an open bazaar, then raping and sodomy of her inside her house, murdering her, placing her body in a bag and dumping it are acts of such brutality and horror that any indulgence would amount to placing a bounty on these offenders and leaving the society in danger.”
The judgment emphasizes that even if the accused is the favorite child of the law, the court has a duty towards society and towards the legal heirs of the victim.
“The punishment imposed on an offender should be such that it has a deterrent effect on the commission of offenses. Conceptually, punishment is imposed on an offender on the basis of retaliation, deterrence or reform.”
He said that deterrent punishment is not only about maintaining a balance with the seriousness of the evil committed by a person, but also about serving as an example to others as a preventive measure for the reformation of society.
“The concept of minor punishment in the law is an attempt to reform an erring individual. However, in the present case, where the petitioner-convict kidnapped a minor girl, committed rape and sodomy, and then murdered her, no leniency should be shown.”
“The death sentence would create a deterrent effect in society, due to which no one else would dare to commit such an offence.
“If in such cases a lenient attitude is adopted, peace, tranquility and harmony in the society would be compromised and vandalism would prevail. A very wide discretion in sentencing has been given to the courts, which must be exercised judiciously,” the judgment said.
The court held that the prosecution had proven the abduction of the minor by the petitioner-convict, the rape and sodomy committed on her, and her subsequent murder, through strong and confidence-inspiring evidence for the last time and circumstantial evidence supported by medical evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
The court observed that the cumulative effect of the evidence on record unequivocally leads to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances is complete and consistent, giving rise to a reasonable and compelling conclusion that the petitioner committed the offense.
Each circumstance thus established is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the petitioner-convict and is incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The court further noted that the petitioner-convict had neither chosen to appear as a witness within the meaning of Section 340(2) of the Code nor produced any evidence in his defence.
“His mere denial in the statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code, being a statement made without oath and not subject to cross-examination, does not in itself refute the prosecution evidence nor discharge the burden upon him once the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case.”
The court said that if the location of the incident is such that no witnesses were available and the accused had exclusive knowledge of the incident, a mere denial on the part of the accused would not be enough to negate the circumstantial evidence which directly connects him with the commission of the offense charged.
“But the accused must raise a plea which, tested on the touchstone of probabilities, supports a reasonable assumption of innocence,” he added.
