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 No.54‑R(S) of 1985, decided on 16th September, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑3‑1985 of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 130/L of 1984).
‑‑‑Art.203‑F‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Contention that conviction based on sole evidence of prosecutrix when such prosecutrix was disbelieved qua her allegations against other accused persons was unsafe without any independent corroboration‑‑Federal Shariat Court having had carefully examined all facts and surrounding circumstances rejected such contention‑‑Supreme Court also on careful consideration to submission agreed with assessment made by Federal Shariat Court that accused had committed Zina‑bil‑Jabar‑‑ Interference declined by Supreme Court and petition for leave to appeal was dismissed‑‑Benefit of 5.382‑B, Cr. P . C . was however given to accused.
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
‑Muhammad Haneef, the petitioner herein, was tried alongwith Muhammad Zia and Mst. Rafia Sultana under section 11 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 for abducting Mst. Shaheen Akhtar. He was also charged for having committed Zina with Mst. Shaheen Akhtar, after abducting her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his judgment dated 18‑7‑1984 acquitted Muhammad Zia and Mst. Rafia Sultana from the charge under section 11 of the Ordinance but convicted Muhammad Hanif under section 10(2) while acquitting him too under the charge under section 11. He was sentenced under section 10(2) to 5 years R.I. and infliction of 30 stripes. A fine of Rs.1,000 was also imposed upon him, in default of payment of which he was to undergo six months' R.I.
On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court vide its order dated 18‑3‑1985 maintained the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition, mainly contended that the conviction of the petitioner was based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix Mst. Shaheen Akhtar but she was not a truthful witness, as she was disbelieved qua her allegations against Muhammad Zia and Mst. Rafia Sultana. In the absence of any independent corroboration of her statement it was legally unsafe to find the petitioner guilty even of the offence under section 10(2) of the Ordinance.
We observe that the same argument was advanced before the learned Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court and he has rejected it after carefully examining all the facts and surrounding circumstances.
We too have given our careful consideration to this submission and are inclined to agree with the assessment made by the learned Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court that the petitioner did commit Zina‑bil‑Raza and, therefore, find no ground for interference with his conclusion.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby. However, the petitioner will be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr. P.C. while computing the period of sentence has yet to undergo.
M.B.A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer