1983 PLP 33 (SCMR)
SOHAIL IQBAL-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 33 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Bench |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SOHAIL 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 1983 PLP 33 (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 1983 PLP 33 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Bench bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 33 (SCMR) (SOHAIL IQBAL-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 19th June, 1982.
- Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan
- Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 4-5-1982 on the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Appeal No. 83/L/1981). - Ss. 6 & 10-Zina-bil-Jabr-Federal Shariat Court altering conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr to one of Zina on assumption of there having been a possibility of victim being a consenting party and consequently reducing sentence passed by trial Court-Correct age of victim being only 16 years, accused petitioner being a fully grown up male, victim having a frail body, bearing marks of violence on back of both forearms indicat ing use of brutal force, case, held, could not be one of consent and question of directing retrial did not arise-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203-F (2-B). Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This leave petition under Article 203‑F (2‑B) of the Constitution calls in question the conviction and sentence of petitioner for Zina, under section 10 (2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The challenge is to the judgment dated 4‑5‑1982 of the Federal Shariat Court whereby the conviction was altered from Zina‑bil-jabr to Zina on the assumption that there was a possibility of the victim being a consenting party, the sentence was also consequently reduced. After hearing the learned counsel in support of his two‑fold submission that if it was a case of consent the female should also have been convicted and that in any case the appropriate order should have been of remand, we do not find any jurisdiction for interference. With respect it is pointed out that the Federal Shariat Court failed to notice that the correct age of the victim was only 16 years as against the petitioner a fully grown up male in his mid‑twenties. She had a frail body weighing only 94 pounds. She bore marks of violence on the backs of both the forearms particular whereof are typical of use of brutal force. She was virgin before the act. The fact that the gagging of her mouth with a cloth did not produce any injury, was not indicative at all of either it being a false assertion or that it was unnatural. Keeping in view all these circumstances and others mentioned in the impugned judgment, we are unable to agree that it might have been a case of consent. That being so, the question of directing retrial does not arise. Otherwise too, the argument is misconceived. This petition is accordingly dismissed as without any merit. Petition dismissed.