2005 P Cr (PLP)
MUKHTAR AHMAD alias TARA and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Manan, J |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD alias TARA and another‑‑‑Appellants 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 2005 P Cr (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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: S.A. Manan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (MUKHTAR AHMAD alias TARA and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Javed Aziz Sandhu for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 30th September, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10(2)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Complainant who was husband of female accused had alleged in F.I.R. that he found both accused committing Zina‑bil‑Raza‑‑‑ Complainant had admitted that he had strained relations with his wife/female accused for the last 8 years and that he told her many times to refrain from relationship with the male accused‑‑‑Relations between complainant and female accused were such that they could not reside under one roof‑‑‑After considering entire evidence on record it appeared that allegations of complainant against both accused seemed to be correct‑‑‑In view of allegations and counter allegations both complainant and his wife/female accused were to blame‑‑‑During arguments a question was debated to make co -accused/male‑accused responsible for the whole disaster, but female accused could not be completely absolved of her relations with her paramour‑‑‑Trial Court believed evidence of complainant and thereafter convicted and sentenced both accused‑‑‑Conviction of female accused was maintained in view of the facts and circumstances of case, but her sentence was reduced to having already undergone and conviction and sentence' awarded to co‑accused/male accused by Trial Court were maintained. Shafqat Munir Malik, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
8. P.W.4 is the lady Dr. Rashiqa Javed who on 25‑10‑2002 medically examined Mst. Surayya Bibi and two vaginal swabs were taken and sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis whose report dated 21‑11‑2002 is positive that, "the above swabs are stained with semen. One swab is being sent to Serologist for semen grouping". It appears that no semen grouping was conducted in the case.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has doubted the result of the Chemical Examiner with a plea that the swabs were received on 18‑11‑2002 in the Office of the Chemical Examiner while the same was received by the police on 25‑10‑2002.
10. The matter was investigated by P.W.7 Syed Mushtaq Ali, S.‑I. who completed the investigation and accused was sent to the Court to face trial without giving his own opinion.
11. Accused Mst. Surayya Bibi was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. on 19‑1‑2004 and she pleaded as under:‑‑ "On 23‑10-2003 the son of the complainant and mine, Gulzar quarrelled with the nephew of accused Mukhtar Ahmad alias Ilyas, I reprimanded my son Gulzar. On hearing the same the complainant became furious, I quarrelled with complainant and I threatened that I will lodge a case against the accused. The complainant had thrown acid on me. As a. counterblast the complainant lodged the instant case against me and my co- accused, so that I could not lodge the above mentioned case. The P. Ws. are closely related to the complainant."
12. On the same day accused Mukhtar Ahmad was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. and he adopted the answer by Mst. Surayya Bibi co- accused in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence.
13. There is positive statement of the complainant of strained relationship with his wife for about 8 years before the present occurrence yet he did not inform anyone nor lodged any report with the police. He was also extremely callous and not helping his wife when allegedly acid was thrown on her and she remained in the hospital. This goes to show that because of strained relationship the complainant completely deserted Mst. Surayya Bibi inasmuch as no help was given to her during the time she remained in the hospital.
14. It appears that, in the circumstances, Mst. Surayya Bibi was helpless to report to the police of the above incident namely alleged throwing of acid on her by the complainant. However, she deposed under section 342, Cr.P.C. that she threatened the complainant for registration of a case against him.
15. Tufail Hussain, complainant admitted in the cross‑examination that about one and half years prior to the occurrence the co‑accused Mukhtar Ahmad had thrown acid on Mst. Surayya Bibi while the latter has positively stated in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that the acid was thrown on her by the complainant. There is also third version that the acid was thrown on Mst. Surayya Bibi by P.W.2 Nawazish Ali, brother of the complainant which was denied.
16. On one hand there were strained relations between Mst. Surayya Bibi and the complainant for the last 8 years as stated by the complainant while on the other hand attempt was being made to injure her. The relations between the husband and the wife were such that they could not, reside under one roof.
17. After considering the entire evidence on the record it‑ appears that the allegations of the complainant against both the accused seem to be correct that it is not ascertainable as to the fate of the children after divorce of Mst Surayya Bibi by the complainant. In view of the allegations and counter‑allegations both complainant and his wife co -accused are to blame.
18. During argument a question was debated to make the co- accused Mukhtar responsible for the whole disaster but the lady cannot be completely absolved of her relations with her paramour.
19. The trial Court has believed the evidence of the complainant and thereafter convicted and sentenced both the appellants as aforesaid.
20. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, I am of the view that on the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the previous relationship of the husband and wife the conviction of Mst. Surayya Bibi is maintained but her sentence reduced to having already undergone. She shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. This might help her to look after her three daughters in accordance with law/or subject to any direction by the Family Court. It is expected that she will reform herself in future without placing herself in any awkward position.
21. The conviction and sentence awarded by the lower Court to Mukhtar Ahmad with fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to further undergo imprisonment for six months is maintained.
22. With above modification in the sentence of Surayya Bibi, this joint appeal is rejected. H.B.T.67/FSC Appeal rejected accordingly.