1996SCMR479 (PLP)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISRAR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996SCMR479 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISRAR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Offence, of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR479 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence, of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR479 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR479 (PLP) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISRAR and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate. Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Shariat Court dated 23‑6‑1993 in Cr. A.No. 181‑I of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203‑F (2‑B)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the complainant had a locus standi for filing the appeal while he did not file any revision in the Federal Shariat Court against the impugned order and whether the reduction of sentence of imprisonment from 12 years' R.I. to the period already undergone was just and proper in the circumstances of the case, especially when the accused did not undergo the punishment of imprisonment for more than 56 days. PLD 1983 SC 233 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, J.‑‑‑The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi had convicted three respondents namely, Muhammad Israr, Ahmad Ali and Shamsul Qamar for having subjected the petitioner, Sardar to carnal intercourse. All the three respondents were sentenced under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to 12 years' R.I. with whipping numbering 30 stripes and a fine of Rs.20,000 or two years R.I. in default. Half of the amount of fine, if realised, was ordered to be given to the appellant by way of compensation under section 540, Cr.P.C. However, the benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was allowed‑to the respondents. The respondents filed an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court where their learned counsel did not press the appeal against their conviction, but prayed for reduction in their sentences. The learned counsel for the State had no objection to the reduction of their sentence, therefore, the learned Federal Shariat Court, while maintaining their conviction; reduced their sentence and imprisonment from 12 years to a term already undergone by them, and the number of stripes was reduced from 30 to 10, and the period of imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine was reduced from two years to one year. Now the petitioner who was the complainant in this case seeks leave to appeal against the said judgment of the Federal Shariat Court for the enhancement of their sentences. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel that the following two questions are worth consideration in this case: (i) Whether the petitioner has a locus standi for filing this appeal while he did not file any revision in the Federal Shariat Court, especially in view of the judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1983 SC 233. (ii) Whether the reduction of sentence of imprisonment from 12 years R.I. to a period already undergone was just and proper in the circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that they were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28‑4‑1993 (while they were earlier on bail) and the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court was delivered on 23‑6‑1993. It means that they did not undergo the punishment of imprisonment for more than 56 days. Leave is, therefore, granted to examine these questions. N.H.Q./S‑907/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.