1983 PLP 409 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑Abdul Rashid, the petitioner, who stands convicted under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court dated 31‑5‑1982 whereby his conviction and sentence was maintained with certain modifications. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was that he alongwith certain companions forcibly removed Mst. Kalsoom aged 16 years resident of Dhoak Sher Khan in District Attock to Gujranwala where she was kept in a house for 12 or 13 days in March, 1981, and the petitioner committed adutery with her. She was got recovered through the intervention of others and a report was lodged on 21‑4‑1981 at 1 p. m. at Police Station Tamman in District Attock. The trial Court believed the ocular evidence and considered the delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. sufficiently explained and convicted the petitioner under section 10(3) of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He was sentenced to 25 years' R. I., 30 stripes and five thousand rupees was imposed as fine and in default two years' R.

1. On appeal by him the Federal Shariat Court got two Court witnesses, Ramzan (C. W. 1) and Muhammad Hussain (C. W. 2) examined and on basis of evidence held that the parties were related, that there was no occasion for a false charge, that the medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case and the corroboration for the statement of the prosecutrix was available from Najeeb Khan (P. W. 6) and Muhammad Hussain (C. W: 2).. However, it was held‑ that she was more likely a consenting party as she had not raised any alarm. The conviction was altered from one under section 10(3) to one under section 10(2) of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and the sentence was reduced to 7 years' R.1. and 15 stripes but the fine and the imprisonment in default was kept intact. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the time of the occurrence was not certain because in the statement recorded on 18‑4‑1981 it was given out that the occurrence had taken place 25‑26 days before the recording of that statement. The medical evidence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not provide the requisite corroboration because the redness noticed on her private parts appeared to be fresh and not old as the prosecution wanted to make it out. It was also contended that the prosecutix had been disbelieved in material part3 in so far as she a was taken to have submitted willingly and her statement when so disbelieved could not form the basis or be the material for receiving corroboration from other quarters. A reference has also been made to the defence version and the evidence adduced in defence which put across the counter version that Kalsoom Akhtar, the girl, was not sane and of balanced mind, bad disappeared from the scene of her own, and even compensation in cash had been paid by the family of the petitioner in order to assuage the honour and reputation of Kalsoom Akhtar and her family in the matter. We find that the questions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner primarily relate to appreciation of evidence which has, in fact, been very thoroughly done by reproducing the statement of each witness in the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court and thereafter analysing and determining its effect. The relationship of the parties has been noted and also the fact that there was no occasion for any of these witnesses to have falsely implicated the petitioner. Besides, ‑a meeting point was found in the two versions before the Court that Mst. Kalsoom had, in fact, disappeared, that the petitioner was accused of having dishonoured her, and that he and his family had offered reparations. The corroboration was sought and received from quarters which are not open to any exception. The Federal Shariat Court also took care to examine as Court witnesses persons who had admittedly at one stage interceded in the matter. We find that in recording the conviction and in sentencing the petitioner no provision or principle of law has been violated such as may call for re-appraisement of the evidence led in the case. Leave to appeal is therefore refused. Leave refused.