Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Supreme Court Rules, 1976, O. XIV‑Petition for leave to appeal delayed by 141 days‑Delay stated to be due to fact that petition was first sent to Federal Shariat Court before its sub mission to Supreme Court‑Petition being a jail petition, explana tion accepted and delay condoned. ‑[Condonation of delay].

‑‑ Art 185(3)‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(3)‑Petitioner raising question of jurisdiction of High Court to hear appeal‑Petitioner himself filing appeal before High Court considering such Court to be competent forum‑Point otherwise adequately dealt with by High Court and no interference found to be called for‑Leave to appeal refused.

Date of hearing : 7th December, 1984.

.‑The petitioner was found guilty, under sec tion 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), of having committed rape on Mst. Fazilat, a girl aged 15, on 25‑5‑1979 at about sunset time, for which he ‑was sentenced by the trial Court to R. I. for 25 years plus 30 stripes. On appeal before the High Court, the conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to 15 years. Aggrieved, he has moved this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The petition is delayed by 141 days which according to the peti tioner is due to the fact that the petition had first been sent to the Federal A Shariat Court, from where it was later submitted to this Court. Considering that is a jail petition, I accept the explanation and condone the delay,

3. The main evidence against the petitioner is of the prorecutrix Mst. Fazilat P. W. 5, according to whom she was raped by the petitioner while she was sitting at the bank of the Jhelum river waiting for the ferry boat, on her way back home from the field where she had been working with her father. After the occurrence she proceeded back to inform her father and on the way met Ahmad (P. W. 6) and Gulla (not produced), to whom sh6 narrated the matter. Thereafter, she went to her father and narrated the story to him also. She is fully supported by her father Alam Sher (P. W. 4) and Ahmad (P. W. 6). Her medical examination conducted on 30‑5‑1979 showed that she had been raped within a week. Two injuries of simple nature were also found on her person and relatable to the time of the occurrence. The petitioner, who denied the allegation, produced his brother‑in‑law Muhammad Yaqub as D. W. 1 in support of the defence case that the petitioner had been involved at the instance of Khuda Bakhsh son of Muhammad Ali Tiwana who was inimically disposed towards Ghulam Muhammad, maternal‑cousin, of the petitioner, on account of land dispute. His plea, however, failed.

4. The fact that the F. I. R. in the case had been lodged on the sixth day of the occurrence, that is, on 31‑5‑1979, bad been urged but the High Court felt satisfied that a sound explanation for the delay had been furnished. Another contention that the girl was herself of immoral character and had involved the petitioner falsely was also repelled for the reason that she had not even known the petitioner from before and that there was no basis to hold that she had implicated the petitioner except because she had been a victim of his lust.

5. The petitioner has in the present petition raised the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the appeal which according to him should have been heard by the Federal Shariat Court. It is to be noted that he had himself filed the appeal before the High Court and his case there had been that the High Court was the competent forum. Even otherwise the point has been adequately dealt with by the High Court and no interference is called for. On merits he has again urged that his involvement was on account of enmity with Malik Khuda Dad Tiwana who had used the pro secutrix, a girl of bad character, for falsely implicating him in the crime. He has further submitted that there were three deras near the scene of occurrence but no one had seen the occurrence and that in any case the young girl was not supposed to have come to the ferry unaccompanied at the evening time. The site plan does not show any dera near the spot. Even otherwise the contentions raised do not affect the veracity of the girl's statement.

6. I, thus, find no merit in this petition, which I am inclined to dismiss.

.‑I agree.

The petition is dismissed.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.