1983 PLP 296 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 1983 PLP 296 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Bench |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Members |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Bench bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 296 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Shariat Court, dated 22nd September, 1982, in Cr. A. 93-I of 1982).
Art. 185 (3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 354 Attempt to murder-Assault or criminal force to woman-Conten tions of petitioner and perusal of material placed on record not making out a fit case for reappraisal of evidence-No point of law involved in case-Leave to appeal from judgment of Federal Shariat Court refused. Nemo for the State. Date of bearing : 13th December, 1982.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CHAIRMAN.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 22‑9‑1982 of the Federal Sharit Court. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for offence under sections 307 and 354, P. P. C. The accusation was that Mst. Karam Jan, complainant, whose father is a labourer, was residing close to the Kariana shop of the petitioner. One morning when she was coming to her house after easing herself, he tried to clasp her so as to induce her for Zina but she succeeded in running away. After some time when she had not yet narrated, this incident to her parents the petitioner repeated the attempt, caught her in a japhha and asked her to have illicit intercourse with him but she refused and resisted. Thereupon 22 blows were inflicted by him on her person with a knife. Her cries attracted Ahmad Khan (P. W.) and her mother, Mst. Malkani. The defence plea at the trial was of denial and false implication; with the further explanation that the victim was injured during the night by other related persons though the rumour was that she was overrun by a truck, Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although there is large number of injuries but there was no attempt to kill ; that the weapon recovered had a blade of 4 but all the injuries were skin deep ; that Ahmad Khan eye‑witness was not mentioned in the site plan ; that there should be a stronger motive for such a large number of injuries than one attributed to the petitioner that he wanted to satisfy his lust ; that the plea from the petitioner's side regarding attack by the relations of the victim so as to prevent her from dishonouring them could not be excluded, and, that Ahmad Khan (P. W.) was not only related to the injured but also was inimical to the petitioner and further that he had falsely been implicated. Learned counsel also argued that there was no allegation in the statement of the prosecutrix that the petitioner even tried to molest her. It is not correct that the injuries were only skin deep. There were stab deep wounds on vital part of the body of the victim. Similarly it is not correct to say that the prosecutrix did not make any allegation of molestation. After hearing the learned counsel at some length in this behalf; as also in support of other submissions and after perusal of the relevant material placed before us, we do not consider it a fit case for reappraisal of the evidence. No point of law is involved. This petition accordingly is dismissed. Petition dismissed.