1985 PLP 998 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 998 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 998 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 998 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 998 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1985.
- Khalid Iqbal Kazir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali,
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad, dated 29‑11‑1984 in Cr. Appeal No. 161/I of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 203‑F(2‑B)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑Conviction on charge of Zina‑‑Mere fact that prosecutrix was a consenting party not enough to disbelieve her nor for that reason her corroboration necessary‑‑Disbelieving of two eye witnesses closely related to prosecutrix and acquittal of two co‑accused with benefit of doubt, not necessarily to react on accused's case‑ Impugned judgment not suffering from any infirmity of law or principle, leave to appeal refused. Khalid Iqbal Kazir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CHAIRMAN.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 29‑11‑1984 of the Federal Shariat Court; whereby petitioner's appeal from conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 it was converted into one under subsection (2) of section 10 and sentence was reduced accordingly. The petitioner alongwith Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Akram, was tried for Zina‑bil‑jabr committed on Mst. Manzoor Begum an unmarried girl of fifteen years age. The co‑accused of the petitioner were acquitted due to benefit of doubt by the trial Court. The petitioner who was an army employee had denied the charge and pleaded alibi. He was found guilty under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. The Federal Shariat Court did not believe the two eye‑witnesses, close relatives of prosecutrix. It was also held that she was a consenting party. But relying on her testimony the finding of. guilty against the appellant was upheld though the offence was altered and sentence reduced. Learned counsel has contended that the F.I.R. was delayed; that the acquittal of two accused should have re‑acted on the case against the petitioner also; that the two eye‑witnesses having been disbelieved the prosecutrix also should have been disbelieved for this reason as also because she being a consenting party her testimony should have been corroborated by independent circumstances; and lastly that the plea of alibi should have been accepted. We have gone through the evidence. The acquittal of the two accused was due to extension of benefit of doubt which would not necessarily re‑act on the case against the petitioner, particularly when they were not even accused of committing Zina. The eye‑witnesses who have been disbelieved were very close relatives of the prosecutrix. In any event they were not otherwise, in the circumstances of the case, likely to advance the prosecution case. The mere fact that the prosecutrix was a consenting party is not enough to disbelieve her nor for this reason alone her corroboration was necessary. The impugned judgment in this behalf does not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle. The evidence regarding plea of alibi was not at all enough to establish it. It has rightly been rejected There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. M. I. Leave refused.