1988 PLP 1501 (SCMR)
ZAFAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1501 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL — 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 1988 PLP 1501 (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 1988 PLP 1501 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1501 (SCMR) (ZAFAR IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th August, 1987.
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2-3-1987 of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad in Criminal Appeal No:332-L of 1986).
S.10(2)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.382-B- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. '203-F--Benefit of doubt Female co-accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted while male accused's appeal resulted in reduction of sentence from 5 years to 4 years and sentence of whipping enhanced to 30 stripes--Leave to appeal sought mainly on the ground that there being no distinction in the case of two convicts, male accused was also entitled to benefit of doubt Held Acquittal of female accused was not justified and she appeared to have been acquitted erroneously--Only because co-accused had been wrongly acquitted, therefore, petitioner should also be acquitted, was not acceptable--No ground for interference having been made out, leave to appeal refused but petitioner granted benefit of the provisions of 5.382-B, Cr.P.C. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner alongwith Mst. Kalsoom Bibi were tried under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and both were found guilty of zina liable to Tazeer within the purview of section 10(2) of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and sentenced to five years' R.I. and 15 stripes by order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 23‑11‑1986. On appeal before the Federal Shariat Court, Mst. Kalsoom Bibi was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges against her. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner Zafar Iqbal was dismissed. However, his sentence was reduced from 5 to 4 years' R.1., but the sentence of whipping was enhanced to 30 stripes in order to bring it in conformity with the requirement of section 10(2) of the Ordinance. This petition for leave to appeal has, therefore, been filed before us by Zafar Iqbal, petitioner. The main contention raised by Qazi Muhammad Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there was no distinction in the case of Mst.Kalsoom Bibi and that of Zafar Iqbal and if Mst.Kalsoom Bibi was entitled to the benefit of doubt so also was the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal. There is some force in the submission that no material distinction existed in the two cases but we do not agree that from this circumstance the inference that follows is that the petitioner too is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In our opinion, on the other hand, the acquittal of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi was not justified and that she appears to have been acquitted erroneously. Hence only because the co‑accusad has been wrongly acquitted, therefore; the petitioner should also be acquitted is not acceptable. No ground for interference, therefore, is wade out and this petition trust fail. However, we consider that the petitioner is entitled to' the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B. Cr.P.C. in the matter of computation of sentence. This petition accordingly will stand deceased in the above terms: M.I. /Z‑33/S Order accordingly.