MIAN ARSHAD vs State Ss — 2026 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MIAN ARSHAD VS State Ss. 376 & 377-B---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), S. 53---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367(5)---Rape, sexual abuse of a person under the age of 18, sexual abuse---Appreciation of evidence---Contents of judgment---Scope---Accused was charged for sexual abuse and committing rape of 12/13 years old daughter of the complainant---Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Trial Court while holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence of rape and child abuse convicted him consecutively under S. 376 read with 377-B P.P.Cs and under S. 53 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 and sentenced him to undergo 14 years R.I.---However, the Trial Court neither awarded the conviction under separate heads/Sections leveled against the accused-appellant nor advanced the reasons why death sentence or life imprisonment was not awarded to the accused-appellant under S. 376, P.P.C.---Subsection (3) of S. 376, P.P.C. provided that in case of committing rape of a minor, the accused shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life---Similarly, as per subsection (4) of S. 376, P.P.C, a public servant if guilty of offence of rape shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life---On record, it was established that the victim in the instant case was a minor girl and the accused-appellant was a public servant being posted as sweeper in Government Girls High School, however, the Trial Court while passing the impugned conviction had totally ignored the provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C.---Accused appellant had been convicted to 14 years imprisonment on a single count, however, the Trial Court neither passed separate sentence under separate Sections of law nor recorded the reasons for awarding him lesser punishment as required under the provisions of S. 367(5), Cr.P.C.---Thus, the impugned judgment being passed in violation of the mandatory provision of S. 367, Cr.P.C, could not sustain in the eye of law, therefore, the same was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under S. 367, Cr.P.C.---Appeal was partially allowed.

MIAN ARSHAD vs State Ss — 2026 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD