1998 PLP 1035 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1035 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1035 (SCMR)?
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 1998 PLP 1035 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, Munir A. Sheikh and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1035 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MANSHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Shariat Court, dated 12‑4‑1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No.215/L of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 10(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F(2B)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to accused to examine the question whether the evidence on record and in particular the statement of prosecutrix had been appraised correctly and in accordance with the principles enunciated by superior Courts for safe administration of justice in criminal cases. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
The petitioner was tried alongwith his co-accused Raja, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Irshad. He was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and thirty stripes. He was, however, acquitted for the offence under section 16 of the Ordinance. As regards other accused, Raja was convicted under section 16 of the Ordinance and was sentenced to 4 years' R.I. with five stripes and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further undergo rigourous imprisonment of six months; while Muhammad Ali and Irshad were acquitted. On appeal, conviction and sentence of both the convicts was maintained vide judgment dated 12-4-1995. Only Muhammad Mansha has filed this petition for leave to appeal and in support his learned counsel argued that the conviction is based on the testimony of Mst. Nasrin P.W.6 alone and the medical evidence cannot provide corroboration, the victim being married woman, and even otherwise is not a woman of good repute. He took us through her evidence in support of the plea that implicit faith cannot be placed on her testimony in view of the contradictions and improbabilities appearing in her statement. Learned Judge of the Federal Shariat Court has observed that the testimony of Mst. Nasrin P.W.6 has stood the test of cross-examination and remained unshattered.
3. The question whether the evidence on record, and in particular the statement of Mst. Nasrin has been appraised correctly and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the superior Courts for safe administration of justice in criminal cases requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. N.H.Q./M-127/S Leave granted.