2002 PLP 3974 (YLR)
ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3974 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3974 (YLR)?
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 2002 PLP 3974 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3974 (YLR) (ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, BAHAWALPUR ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Mehmood Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.4 & 10(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.375‑‑‑Remission of sentence ‑‑‑Entitlement‑ ‑Accused was tried under S.10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment and said sentence was reduced in appeal to 15 years‑‑‑Accused had sought issuance of direction to Jail Authorities to compute all ordinary and special remissions into his sentence granted by Government and higher Authorities on different occasions‑‑ Special remission of one year was granted by Notifications to prisoners convicted for life imprisonment except those convicted espionage, anti‑State activities, rape, robbery, dacoity, kidnapping and terrorist act‑‑‑Accused who had been punished for committing offence of Zina or rape, were not entitled to get advantage of notifications whereby remission into sentence was granted.
Judgment & Decree
7. So far as the case of rape is concerned, it would be appropriate and advantageous to reproduce the definition of rape as given in section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which reads as under:‑ "Rape.‑‑‑A man is said to commit 'rape' who except in the cases hereinafter excepted has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following descriptions: First: Against her will. Secondly: Without her consent. Thirdly: With her consent when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly: With her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or, believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly: With or without her consent when she is under fourteen years of age. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the bare reading of the above provisions of section 375, P.P.C., it is manifestly clear that rape is said to have been committed with a woman of falling under any of the above descriptions.
8. The word 'Zina' has been defined in section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, as under:‑ "
4. Zina.‑‑A man and a woman are said to commit 'Zina' if they wilfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other. Explanation.‑‑‑Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of 'Zina' ."
9. In both the above‑referred laws, the sexual intercourse by a man with a woman is the pre‑condition and if the ingredients of rape and Zina are not made out in the case, it would not be inferred that the person has committed any rape or Zina with the woman.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has been sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment under section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, thus, the special remission of one year under clause (2) of above‑referred notifications is not attracted to the case of the petitioner. The remission for six months has also not been granted to the prisoners convicted under the offence of rape.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in observing that petitioner has been punished for committing offence of Zina or rape, therefore paras. Nos. 1 and 2 of the abovementioned notifications are not attracted to the present case and the petitioner is not entitled for any remission granted to the prisoners from time to time. In view of above discussion, this writ petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑651/L Petition dismissed.