Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 36‑R (Shariat) of 1985, decided on 14th September, 1985.
(From the judgment and order of the Federal Shariat Court, dated 17‑3‑1985 in Crl. Appeal No. 216/L of 1984).
‑--- Art. 185(3)‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordi nance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(2) & 10(3)‑Allegation of Zina bil‑Jabr‑Eye‑witnesses not relied upon due to some discrepancies Medical evidence was positive with further finding that prosecu trix was used to sexual intercourse‑ Federal Shariat Court holding that notwithstanding exclusion of eye‑witnesses there was enough material to show that accused was culprit but keeping in view all. circumstances it was a case of consent and conviction and sentence was altered from S. 10(3) to 10(2)‑No inherent infirmity in depo sition of victim except element of possible consent found‑No reasons shown to prove that prosecution falsely implicated accus ed‑Accused, held, was rightly convicted under S. 10(2) in circum stances.
‑‑ S. 10(2)‑Zina‑Consent‑Whether a consenting woman should not be relied upon in cases of Zina or her testimony should not be accepted without corroboration.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The case‑law relevant to cases under section 376, P. P. C. wherein consent of the victim above a certain age, was complete defence is no more strictly attracted to offences under offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), whereunder consent does not absolve the offender totally.
Zafar Pasha Chaudhry and Mahmood A. Qureshi Advocate on Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 14th September, 1985.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 17‑3‑1985, of the Federal Shariat Court where by the petitioner's appeal from conviction under S. 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), was only partly allowed with a finding of guilty under section 10(2) instead of 1.0(3) ; with the reduction of sentence from 15 years' R. I. to 5 years' R. I. maintain ing the sentence of 30 stripes.
The prosecution case was that Mst Sughra the prosecutrix was inveigled by the acquitted accused Mst. Zareena to her house on a false pretext. From there she was sent to petitioner's chowbara on other false pretext. There she was shut in and subject to Zina‑bil‑Jabr by the petitioner.
Two eye‑witnesses Ashiq and Asghar, were not relied upon due to some discrepancies. The medical evidence was positive with further fielding that the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse.
The finding of the Federal Shariat Court was that notwithstanding the exclusion of the two eye‑witnesses there was enough material to show that the petitioner was the culprit but keeping in view all the circumstances of the case it was treated a case of consent and the convic tion and sentence were accordingly altered from section 10(3) to 10(2) of the Ordinance.
Learned counsel has contended : firstly, that a consenting woman should not be relied upon in cases of Zina; and secondly, that her testimony should not be accepted without corroboration.
We do not agree with such a generalisation in case of Zina. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The case‑law relevant to cases under section 376, B P. P. C. wherein consent of the victim above a certain age, was com plete defence is no more strictly attracted to offence under Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), whereunder consent does not absolve the offender totally.
In this case we having gone through the evidence are satisfied that except for the element of a possible consent, there; is no inherent infirmity in the deposition of the victim. She had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner either. He has rightly been convicted. Leave t appeal is, therefore, refused.
M.B.A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer